No Penalty for Not Mentioning Transporter in E-Way Bill | HC

Case Details: Shakuntalam Associates Versus Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal)-V (2025) 33 Centax 162 (All.) 

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Piyush Agrawal, J.
• Shri Suyash Agarwal for the Petitioner

Facts of the Case

The petitioner’s goods in transit from Delhi to Delhi were detained and seized on the ground that the transporter’s name was not mentioned in the e-way bill, though the truck number and all other particulars were duly entered. An order was passed under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, which was upheld in appeal. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ, contending that all requisite documents such as tax invoice, e-way bill and bilty accompanied the goods, and that the omission to mention the transporter’s name was a mere technical breach without any intent to evade tax. It was further argued that the goods had only been diverted to a transport godown in Chikamberpur (between Delhi and Ghaziabad) for consolidation of full truck load, which was a common trade practice, and that the authorities had misread the driver’s statement in drawing an inference of evasion.

High Court Held

The Allahabad High Court allowed the petition, holding that penalty proceedings under Section 129 could not be attracted in the absence of any finding of intent to evade tax. The Court noted that the goods were duly covered by tax invoice and e-way bill, and while the transporter’s name was missing, the truck number and all other details were clearly mentioned. Referring to Varun Beverages Ltd. v. State of U.P. and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Asstt. Commissioner (ST) v. Satyam Shivam Papers (P.) Ltd., it was reiterated that technical lapses cannot by themselves justify penalty unless accompanied by evidence of evasion. Accordingly, both the seizure order and the appellate order were quashed, and the writ petition was allowed. 

List of Cases Cited

• Asstt. Commissioner (ST) v. Satyam Shivam Papers (P.) Ltd. — 2022 (57) G.S.T.L. 97 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 7]
• Varun Beverages Ltd. v. State of U.P. — 2023 (71) G.S.T.L. 4/(2023) 3 Centax 160 (All.) — Referred [Para 7]