Case Details: Manish Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (2025) 33 Centax 109 (M.P.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- VIVEK RUSIA and BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI, JJ.
-
S/Shri Yatish Kumar Laad, Adv. and S. Suriyanarayanan Iyer, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
-
Shri Anand Soni, Additional Adv. General for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, an exporter, had arranged to export a consignment of PVC film to Nepal, which was accompanied by a copy of the letter of credit issued by the foreign importer and Part A of the E-way bill. During transit, the vehicle carrying the consignment was intercepted as the driver failed to produce Part B of the E-way bill containing vehicle details. The adjudicating authority passed an order imposing IGST along with an equal amount of penalty under Section 129 read with Section 68 of the CGST Act and the Madhya Pradesh GST Act. The appellate authority upheld the order of detention and penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the High Court, contending that Part A of the E-way bill along with the export documents was sufficient to establish the bona fides of the consignment and that the absence of Part B should not result in detention. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
High Court Held
The High Court held that non-generation of Part B of the E-way bill was a valid ground for detention of goods and conveyance in transit. It noted that the E-way bill Part A slip itself expressly recorded that “Part-A was not valid for movement as Part B is not entered,” thereby rendering the E-way bill incomplete and invalid for transportation. The Court held that generation of Part B under Rule 138 of the CGST Rules read with the corresponding Madhya Pradesh GST Rules was mandatory and not a mere formality, as it confirmed that the consignment was being exported and would reach its destination. It was further held that the E-way bill is a statutory document for transportation of goods and, in the absence of Part B, Part A of the document had no validity. Accordingly, the Court upheld the order of the appellate authority and refused to interfere.
List Of Case Cited
- Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh — (2023) 71 G.S.T.L. 214 (All.) — Referred [Para 4]
- Daya Shanker Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh — 2022 (65) G.S.T.L. 12 (M.P.) — Referred [Para 4]
- Robbins Tunnelling and Trenchless Technology (India) (P.) Ltd. v. State of M.P. — [2021] 133 taxmann.com 164 (Madhya Pradesh) — Referred [Para 4]
