M/S Raj Rajeshwari Tecchno Fab PVT. LTD. vs. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 Appeal 6 State Tax Kanpur And Another - Allahabad High Court, 11 August 2025

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136710 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 72 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Raj Rajeshwari Tecchno Fab Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- Additional Commissioner Grade 2 Appeal 6 State Tax Kanpur And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. with Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 80 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Zaib International Respondent :- Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 Appeal-6 State Tax Kanpur And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. 1. Heard Mr. Aditya Pandey,learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ravi Shanker Pandey for the State-respondents. 2. The issue involved in both the writ petitions are common, therefore, with the consent the parties, both the writ petitions are decided by a common order, treating Writ Tax No. 72 of 2025 as leading case. 3. By means of Writ Tax No. 72 of 2025, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 29.10.2024 and the detention order dated 31.5.2022 as well as penalty order dated 31.5.2022. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is engaged in the business of handloom cloth and in the normal course of business, he has purchased the goods from M/s Surabhi Synthetics (herein after referred to as supplier) and in pursuance thereof, the supplier issued tax invoice GST/17 dated 14.5.2022 and generated E-way bill no. 201430150062 and the goods were booked with the transporter M/s Verma Roadways loaded on Truck No. MP09HH 5221 for its journey from Ichalkaranji Maharastra to Kanpur Nagar, UP. He submits that during its onward journey, the goods in question were intercepted on 27.5.2022 by respondent no. 2 at Naubasta, Kanpur Nagar, UP and on physical verification, it was found that e-way bill, accompanying with the goods, was expired. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued and demand of penalty order dated 31.5.2022 was passed in Form GST MOV-09. The petitioner challenged the said order in appeal, which has also been dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that during movement of the goods, the vehicle in question met with an accident and driver of the vehicle was not well versed with the GST laws, therefore, he did not inform either of the parties, i.e. seller-purchaser of the goods/ transporter, therefore the e-way bill was not updated within time. He further submits that due to human error, which is beyond control of the petitioner, the petitioner has been penalized. He further submits that before the seizure order could be passed, the petitioner has produced the updated e-way bill, which is also annexed as Annexure no. 8 of the writ petition but the respondent authorities have not given due weightage of the

same and passed the penalty order.

In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement of this Court in the case of M/s Ashoka Citation No. 2024:AHC:11844) and M/s Globe Panel Industrial No. 2024:AHC:19158) as well as Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Sarvottam Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of UP and others (Neutral Citation NO. 2018:AHC:191778-DB).

Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned order and submits that if the goods were not intercepted, the petitioner could have succeeded in avoiding the payment of legitimate tax.

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

It is not in dispute that the goods were loaded from Ichalkaranji Maharastra and same were intercepted at Naubasta, Kanpur Nagar, UP. It is also not in dispute that during physical verification of the goods, no discrepancy with regard to quality, quantity and nature of the goods was found except expiry of e-way bill. The contention of the petitioner is that the vehicle in question met with an accident and same was also reported to the police authorities, therefore, the e-way bill has been expired. The record further reveals that before the seizure order could be passed, updated e-

way bill was generated and same had been produced before the respondent authorities but no due weightage was given by the respondent authority. The record further reveals that no finding has been recorded by the respondent authorities with regard to intent of the petitioner for avoiding the payment of tax, which is condition precedent as held by this Court in the cases of M/s Ashoka P.U. Foam (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), M/s Globe Panel Industrial India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and M/s Sarvottam Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd (supra).

10.

On various occasions, this Court has repeatedly held that mere expiry of e-way bill, if a fresh e-way is generated, the consignee or consignor cannot be attributed to any contravention of the provisions of GST Act.

11.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as law laid down by this Court as referred herein above, the impugned orders passed in both the writ petitions, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and same are hereby quashed.

12.

Both the writ petitions are succeeds and are allowed.

13.

Any amount deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded to him in accordance with law. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Rahul Dwivedi/- RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad