TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 70
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....25.03.2025 at 03:51 A.M, which was running from Delhi to Lucknow, in which electric equipment were being transported. Mobile squad in charge asked driver of the truck to show relevant papers regarding goods being carried in the vehicle. On such demand driver has shown consignment note no. 9059234 dated 24.03.2025 GSTIN No. 07AAGCS9294MIZH of M/s Tata Play limited C/o Bakshi Associate pvt. south west, New Delhi. Consignment was being transported by M/s TATA Play Limited to its another inter-state godown Balaji enclave, opposite CRPF gate 01, Bijnor road, Lucknow, having GSTIN-09AAGCS9294MIZD. In shipping the consignment invoice no. DI2430008602 dated 22.03.2025 with e-way bill (EWB01) no. 741512630575 dated 24.03.2025 and invoice no. DI2430008590 dated 22.03.2025 with e-way bill no. 741512183264 dated 22.03.2025 were found and shown by driver of the vehicle intercepted. 3. On verification it was found that vehicle mentioned in e-way bill no. 741512183264 was DL-01LAL- 7401 while actual vehicle in which said consignment was being carried was DL01MB-3570. As per, tax invoices, goods were being transported from M/s Tata Play limited, southwest, New Delhi to its inter-state another f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y-imposed u/s 129(3) of CGST Act. Findings with reasons 8. We have heard the learned authorized representatives of respective parties, perused the materials on record and evaluated the relevant provisions of the law applicable to the facts of the case in hand. 9. As per section 68 of the CGST Act, the driver of a conveyance carrying goods exceeding specified threshold must carry relevant documents. Further explanation (2) to rule 138(3) clearly provides that an e-way bill is not valid for movement of goods until its part-B is duly filled up with correct details of the vehicle. Insofar, CBIC circular no. 64/38/2018-GST applies strictly to "error in one or two digits/ characters of the vehicle number. Thus, this concession covers only minor clerical slips i.e. writing as DL-01-AB-1234 instead of no. DL-01-AB-1243, It cannot be extended to cover a completely substitution of vehicle like DL-01-LA-9876. Substituting an entirely different vehicle without updating part B or mentioning therein entirely different number, then that of vehicle in which goods is being actually transported. Thus, aforesaid CBIC circular can not be extended to the present case because of there is entire....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dia (Supra) though, part-A of e-way bill was correctly filled up but part-B could not be generated due to technical difficulties it was held that in absence of intent to evade tax or clear mens rea penalty cannot be imposed for omission of filling up part-B of e-way bill. As stated earlier in the present matter part-B of e-way bill was not kept blank but entirely different number from the vehicle in which goods were being transported was written therein. 14. Facts and question for determination in case of Banaras industrials (Supra) are different with the case in hand and therefore, principle laid down in this case law also not applicable here. 15. As per facts of M/s Satyam Shivam (Supra) e-way bill was expired before a day as there was traffic blockage at the route due to anti CAA and NRC agitations and goods were detained without considering circumstances being out of control of the taxpayer. In this way the facts of the present case are explicitly distinguishable to the case cited M/s Satyam Shivam (Supra) and thus principle laid down in such ruling would not also be applicable to the facts of the case in hand. 16. Learned first appellate authority has also cited vario....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....High court that incorrect or incomplete e-way bill justifies the penalty u/s 129 read with rules 138 of CGST, Act and rules 2017 respectively. In M/s B.M Computer (Supra) decided by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court on 10.04.2025 re-affirmed strict procedural compliance regarding the e-way bill mechanism u/s 129 of CGST/UPGST Act, 2017. It is further held by the High Court that movement of goods without fully completed e-way bill specifically where its part-B is omitted prior to transit violates rule 138 of CGST rules, merely generating part-A does not full fill statutory compliance. It is also held in that case that transporting consignments with an incomplete e-way bill creates a rebuttable presumption of and intention to evade tax and thereafter onus shifts entirely to the dealer/consigner to rebutte such presumption with credible positive evidence or by surrounding circumstances of that particular matter. 20. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent had argued before the bench that mistake in part-B of e-way bill concerned was rectified before interception of the vehicle but argument in such a way is not acceptable because of time of interception of vehicle and verification of re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Supra) the department/state has succeeded to established a presumption that by mentioning entirely different no. in e-way bill respondent taxpayer has violated the relevant provisions section 68 read with section 129 of CGST/UPGST Act read with rule 138 of CGST rules 2017 with intent to evade tax. Though this is a rebuttable presumption and in my considered opinion respondent has completely failed to rebutte the same even from the surrounding circumstances of the case. 25. Thus, in the back drop of above discussion of the facts question no. (i) (ii) & (iii) formulated in para no. 7 are answered in negative, and thus in my considered opinion learned First Appellate Authority has committed manifest error of law and facts in allowing the first appeal and waiving the penalty imposed by adjudicating officer. 26. Consequently, the second appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed, Order impugned dated 09.07.2025 passed in First Appeal no. 0325/2025 is set aside and order passed by Adjudicating officer in order no. ZD090425006528B on 01.04.2025 is restored. 27. Respondent taxpayer is directed to pay the penalty as assessed u/s 129 of CGST/UPGST Act, by Adjudicating officer, failing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....section 129 of the CGST/UPGST Act, particularly where alleged violation is merely technical and the transaction is otherwise genuine. 10. In Writ Tax No. 1095 of 2025 decided on 19 March 2025 M/S Satyam Traders Vs. State of U.P. and others Hon. Allahabad High Court held: "Since no mens rea to evade tax was there, we are of the view that the detention proceedings along with order under Section 129(3) of the Act are arbitrary and invalid in law" 11- Similarly in WRIT TAX No. - 1400 of 2019 M/S. HINDUSTAN HERBAL COSMETICS VS STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS decided on 2-1-2024 Court held; "Upon perusal of the judgments, the principle that emerges is that presence of mens rea for evasion of tax is a sine qua non for imposition of penalty. A typographical error in the e-way bill without any further material to substantiate the intention to evade tax should not and cannot lead to imposition of penalty. 12. Taking together, the core operative principles emerging from these decisions can be summarized as: • Mens rea is a necessary ingredient for section 129 proceedings • Presence of genuine commercial documentation negates presumption of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re being transported from Agra to Noida while the e-way bill was issued by the petitioner firm from Agra to Agra." 18- Similarly, appellant has cited judgement of Jhansi Enterprises (2024) stating that "Movement without proper e-way bill is a contravention." But again, in this case WRIT TAX NO. - 1081 OF 2019 M/S JHANSI ENTERPRISES, NANDANPURA, JHANSI Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS Honourable Allahabad High Court has observed. "It is a well settled position of law that if there is no intention to evade tax on the part of a person then imposition of tax and penalty is not proper and justified. But there must be some reasonable grounds to show that there was actually no intention to evade tax on the part of tax payer." Further it has been observed "In the present case, one comes to an inexorable conclusion that the petitioner has not been able to rebut the presumption of evasion of taxes, as he has not been able to explain the absence of invoice and the E-Way Bill. Production of these documents subsequent to the interception cannot absolve the petitioner from the liability of penalty" Similarly, some other cases have also been cited out of context and they do....