Case Details: Saahaj Milk Producer Company Ltd. Versus State of U.P. (2025) 28 Centax 233 (All.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Piyush Agrawal, J.
- Shri Puneet Arun, for the Petitioner.
- Shri Ravi Shanker Pandey, ACSC, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner-assessee, engaged in manufacturing and retailing milk products, generated e-way bills for an intra-state stock transfer. Due to an unforeseen personal emergency, the driver diverted the vehicle, leading to the expiry of the e-way bill. The department intercepted the vehicle and imposed a penalty despite the petitioner’s explanation that the delay was unintentional. The appellate authority upheld the penalty, leading the petitioner to seek judicial relief, emphasizing that the expiry did not indicate an intent to evade tax.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble High Court held that, as per established precedents, penalty and seizure under Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017, are unjustified in the absence of intent to evade tax. Since the expired e-way bill pertained to an intra-state stock transfer and not a taxable sale, and no finding suggested tax evasion, the penalty proceedings were vitiated. The court quashed the impugned orders as legally untenable.
List of Cases Cited
- Assistant Commissioner (ST) v. Satyam Shivam Papers Private Limited — [SLP © No. 21132/21 decided on 12.1.2022] — Followed [Para 14]
- Same Deutz Fahr India Pvt. Ltd v. State of Telangana — Writ Petition No. 13392 of 2020 — Referred [Para 7]
- Shyam Sel and Power Ltd. v. State of UP — [Neutral Citation No. 2023: AHC: 191074] — Followed [Para 13]
- Vacmet India Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, Grade 2 Appeal — [Neutral Citation No. 2023: AHC: 200160] — Followed [Para 15]
