M/S Shri Balaji Papers vs. The State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC for the State respondents.

By means of present petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 16.1.2025 passed by respondent no. 2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm and engaged in the business of purchase and sale of duplex board / papers. He submits that in the normal course of business, the petitioner has received an order for supply of 15552 kg kraft paper from Shree Balajee International, Agra and the buyer of the said goods directed the petitioner to deliver the said goods to M/s S.K. Packaging Industries, Atroni, Agra (consignee) and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner issued Tax Invoice No. 557 dated 17.2.2021 and also generated e-way bill no. 461163574209 on 17.2.2021 at 4.17 PM for transportation of the said goods, however due to some error in the column of ‘ship to’, the address of the buyer has been filled instead of the address of the consignee. He submits that when the said discrepancy was noticed then immediately the said e-way bill has been cancelled on 17.2.2021 at 5.46 PM and a new e-way bill no. 411163611965 was generated on that very day at 5.51 PM.

He submits that on the said premise, a show cause notice has been issued under Section 74 of the GST Act to which the petitioner has submitted specific reply but being not satisfied with the same, the impugned order has been passed on 13.9.2024 against which the petitioner has preferred an appeal, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 16.1.2025 without considering the material on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after noticing the error in the e-way bill, the same was immediately cancelled and thereafter a new e-way bill was generated, therefore, merely on this ground, no adverse inference should have been drawn against the petitioner. He submits that the respondent authorities without any basis have initiated the proceedings under Section 74 of the Act merely because cancellation of one e-way bill, however no findings have been recorded by the respondent authorities in respect of generation of new e- way bill immediately after cancelling the faulty e-way bill.

Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned order and submits that the stands taken by the petitioner at every level are different. He submits that before this Court the petitioner has taken a plea that wrong entry has been mentioned in the e-way bill, therefore, the said e-way bill has been cancelled and new e-way bill has been generated, whereas in the reply submitted by the petitioner before the proper officer, a plea taken that ‘ship to’ column was left blank, therefore, the e-way bill was cancelled. He submits that looking to the said fact, it appears that the intention of the petitioner itself is bad, therefore, the proceedings have rightly been initiated. He submits that from the place of dispatch, the place of the recipient, is only 08 kms away. He submits that the transportation of the goods hardly take a few time to reach the destination, hence multi trip was undertaken and when the goods were reached the destination, the e-way bill has been cancelled. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

After hearing leaned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has sold the goods through Tax Invoice No. 557 dated 17.2.2021 and e-way bill was also generated. The proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner only on the basis of cancellation of e-way bill generated on 17.2.2021 at 4.17 PM. The stand taken by the revenue that multi trip has been taken place in the garb of the said tax invoice and e-way bill but none of the authorities has given due weightage of generation of subsequent e-way bill on that very day at 5.51 PM. The record shows that the petitioner has categorically submitted in its reply to the show cause notice stating therein that fresh e-way bill has been generated within two hours. Therefore, merely because the distance is very short from the place of consignor to the place of consignee, the adverse inference cannot be drawn without rebutting the fact that new e-way bill has been generated within two hours.

Since the respondent authorities have failed to consider the stand taken by the petitioner and also not recorded any finding contrary to the fact that new e-way bill was generated within two hours of generation and cancellation of earlier e-way bill, the matter requires re- consideration.

In view of above, the impugned order are set aside.

The matter is remanded to the proper officer, who shall decide the matter afresh, by reasoned and speaking order, after dealing with each and every point of the reply submitted by the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of producing a certified copy of this order, in accordance with law.

The writ petition is allowed accordingly. (Piyush Agrawal, J.) September 22, 2025 Rahul Dwivedi/- RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad