Case Details: Aysha Builders and Suppliers vs. State of U.P. (2025) 37 Centax 79 (All.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Arun Bhansali, CJ. & Vikas Budhwar, J.
- Shri Akhil Agnihotri, Counsel, for the Petitioner.
- Shri Ankur Agarwal, S.C., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a transporter, was engaged in intra-city movement of goods under valid tax invoices but without carrying the requisite E-way Bill. The vehicle was intercepted, following which a notice for non-carriage of E-way Bill was issued and a penalty order was imposed. The petitioner submitted that the E-way Bill was generated after interception and produced before the penalty order, relying on the decision in Axpress Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (18) G.S.T.L. 794 (All.)]. The revenue contended that the detention occurred before generation of the E-way Bill. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that since the E-way Bill was generated only after interception, subsequent production before the penalty order did not cure the deficiency, as the E-way Bill must exist at the time of interception under statutory rules. The Court further held that reliance on Axpress Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. was inapplicable because that case involved an E-way Bill generated prior to detention. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, ruling in favour of the revenue.
List of Cases Cited
- Axpress Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 2018 (18) G.S.T.L. 794 (All.) — Distinguished [Paras 4, 8]
