2025 (9) TMI 321 - HC - GST

Petition allowed, impugned orders quashed and deposit refunded after verification finds no tax evasion; e-way bill lapse technical

M/s Rakesh Plastic Furniture And Crockery Emporium Tehsil Road Aliganj Versus State of U.P. And 2 Others

M/s Rakesh Plastic Furniture And Crockery Emporium Tehsil Road Aliganj Versus State of U.P. And 2 Others - 2025:AHC:153284 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED Whether seizure and detention of goods and initiation of proceedings under section 129(3) of the GST Act are sustainable where the transported goods correspond to the tax invoices (including serial numbers) but the vehicle number actually used for carriage differs from that shown in the e-way bill and was not updated by the transporter? Whether mere non-updation of the vehicle number in the e-way bill, without any discrepancy in the goods as per accompanying tax invoices (including serial numbers), permits drawing of an adverse inference of intention to evade tax and justifies refusal of refund of amounts deposited for release of goods? 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Validity of seizure and proceedings under section 129(3) of the GST Act where vehicle number on e-way bill differs from actual transporting vehicle Legal framework: Proceedings were taken under section 129(3) of the GST Act for detention/seizure of goods on the ground that the vehicle transporting the goods did not correspond to the vehicle number shown in the accompanying documents/e-way bill. Precedent Treatment: The Court considered the statutory provision permitting seizure/detention where there is a breach of rules governing movement of goods. No binding precedent was relied upon, followed or overruled in the record; assessment was fact-specific. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined factual matrix: goods were branded electronic items, tax invoices stated item details and serial numbers, physical verification found no discrepancy between goods and invoices, and the transporter changed vehicle due to non-availability/defects of a previously arranged vehicle. The petitioner had from the outset communicated the change and explained non-updation by the transporter. The Court held that the statutory power to detain/seize cannot be exercised in a manner that ignores decisive corroborative evidence showing the goods matched invoices. The difference in vehicle number, standing alone, constituted a technical breach; where the identity and particulars of the goods (including serial numbers) were exactly as invoiced, seizure under section 129(3) was not justified to infer evasion of tax. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where goods exactly correspond to accompanying invoices (including serial numbers) and physical verification shows no discrepancy, mere mismatch of vehicle number in e-way bill (unupdated by transporter) does not sustain seizure/detention under section 129(3) as evidence of tax evasion. Obiter - observations about transporter conduct and administrative weight to be given to explanations for vehicle substitution. Conclusion: The impugned detention/seizure and proceedings under section 129(3) are not sustainable on these facts and are quashed. Issue 2 - Whether non-updation of e-way bill vehicle number permits adverse inference of intent to evade tax and denial of refund of deposited amounts Legal framework: Rules require accurate particulars in e-way bills and updating on change of conveyance; penalties and tax may be imposed where statutory requirements are breached. Administrative appeals review the factual and legal sufficiency of such penalties. Precedent Treatment: The Court did not invoke or distinguish specific prior decisions; analysis remained anchored to statutory purpose and evidentiary facts. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized that intention to evade tax cannot be inferred solely from a technical omission by the transporter to update vehicle details in the e-way bill where the petitioner produced invoices specifying serial numbers and physical verification matched those particulars. The petitioner had provided explanation from the earliest stage; the appeal authority failed to give weight to that material. Given the absence of discrepancy in goods, the technical breach lacked probative value to establish evasion or justify penal consequences. Consequently, amounts paid/penalties deposited for release of goods could not be retained absent lawful basis. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - non-updation of vehicle number in the e-way bill, when the goods and their serial numbers match the invoices and there is no evidence of mis-description or tax evasion, cannot justify an adverse inference of evasion or denial of refund of amounts deposited for release. Obiter - comments on administrative practice of giving due weight to explanations provided by consignees/transporters at the first opportunity. Conclusion: The appeal authority's rejection of the appeal and refusal to refund amounts was unsound; deposited amounts are to be refunded and impugned orders quashed. Interrelationship and cross-reference The conclusions on both issues are interdependent: the lack of discrepancy between physical goods and tax invoices (including serial numbers) negates probative value of the technical breach (vehicle-number mismatch), and therefore both the detention/proceedings under section 129(3) and the retention of deposited amounts fail for want of substantive justification. See Issue 1 and Issue 2 reasoning above.