E-way bill Part-B omission alone cannot sustain GST penalty without a finding of intent to evade tax.

Mere non-filling of Part-B of an e-way bill was treated as a technical breach and not, by itself, a sufficient basis for penalty under the Uttar Pradesh GST detention provisions. The authority had relied on the admitted omission and an alleged Rule 138 violation, but no finding was recorded that the movement of goods involved an attempt to evade tax. In the absence of such a finding, penalty under Section 129(3) could not be sustained, and the writ petition succeeded with the penalty order set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be sustained merely because Part-B of the e-way bill was not filled, in the absence of any finding of intent or attempt to evade tax.

Analysis: The impugned order proceeded on the admitted non-filling of Part-B of the e-way bill and the alleged violation of Rule 138 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. It did not record any finding that the movement of goods involved an attempt to evade tax. In the absence of such a finding, mere non-compliance with the e-way bill requirement was treated as a technical breach and not as a sufficient basis for penalty under the GST detention provisions.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 129(3) could not be sustained on the sole ground of non-filling of Part-B of the e-way bill without a finding of intent to evade tax.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the penalty order was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere non-filling of Part-B of an e-way bill does not justify penalty under Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 unless the authority records a finding of an attempt to evade tax.

---