Case Details: Vishnu Singh v. State of UP (2025) 28 CENTAX 384 (ALL.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Piyush Agrawal, J.
- Shri Rishi Raj Kapoor, for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, engaged in civil construction work, transported bitumen from Mathura to Mirzapur under a valid tax invoice. However, due to a human error, the SAP Document Number was mentioned instead of the tax invoice number in the e-way bill. During transit, the vehicle was intercepted, and goods were seized. Despite valid accompanying documents and no discrepancy in the goods, the authorities imposed tax and penalty under Section 129(3) of the GST Act.
The petitioner contended that the error was technical, committed unintentionally, and that there was no intent to evade tax. The revenue, however, justified the penalty on the ground that the e-way bill did not conform to Rule 138. The High Court observed that no findings were recorded by the authorities indicating tax evasion, and no irregularities were found in the quality or quantity of goods. The only issue was the mismatch in invoice reference, which was held to be a bona fide mistake.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the purpose of the e-way bill is to inform the department about goods movement, and minor technical errors without mala fide intent do not warrant penalty under Section 129. Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned orders and allowed the writ petition, reaffirming that procedural lapses devoid of tax evasion intent are not punishable under GST law.
List of Cases Cited
- Zhuzoor Infratech Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner — [Writ Tax No. 830/2024, decided 14.02.2025] — Followed [Para 11]
