Allahabad HC: Downloading GST E-Way Bill, Including Part-B, Mandatory for Goods Transactions After April 2018

The Allahabad High Court stated that taxpayers must download the complete GST E-way Bill, including Part B, for transactions conducted after April 2018.

In M/s. Varun Beverages Limited vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, M/s. Falguni Steels vs. State of U.P. and others, and others, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, determining the earlier ruling of the High Court, ruled that,

Read Also: All About GST E-Way Bill 2 Portal with Main Benefits

“Reliance placed upon the judgments is distinguishable in the facts of the present case as in those cases, the transaction was before April 2018, where the benefit was given to those assesses. It is mandatory on the part of the seller to download the complete e-way bill once the goods are put in transit. Only downloading Part A of the e-way bill and non-filing of Part B would not absolve the liability under the Act.”

From the Agra headquarters of the applicant firm, the applicant was transferring the goods to the Ghaziabad Branch. Two invoices and the related e-way bills were generated. Physical verification was performed when the goods were intercepted at Greater Noida. Since Part B of the e-way bill was not filled out, the goods were detained.

Recommended: Allahabad HC: Clerical GST E-way Bill Errors Alone Do Not Justify Penalty or Seizure

In the response of the applicant, a Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued. Under Section 129(3) order was passed against the applicant levying the penalty. The whole amount has been deposited by the applicant towards the release of the vehicles. The appeal was rejected, submitted by the applicant against the order.

The applicant contests the order of penalty and the appellate authority order, citing that all the other documents were complete except Part B of the E-way bill.

The applicant’s counsel relied on Allahabad High Court rulings made previously in M/s. Varun Beverages Limited vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, M/s. Falguni Steels vs. State of U.P. and others Indeutsch Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & others, M/s. Exch. Therm Engineering Company vs. State of U.P. and others and M/s Rawal Wasia Yarn Dying Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax and another, where the court ruled that non-filing of Part B of the e-way bill does not establish the tax evade intent.

Per contra, the department’s counsel claimed that the intent to evade tax was specified as one of the GST e-way bills depicted that goods were moving from Agra to Agra, whereas they were being transported from Agra to Noida. As there is no filing of Part B, the goods may be brought in multiple times with the use of the same document, as the time limit does not begin

In M/s. Jhansi Enterprises, Nandanpura, Jhansi vs. State of U.P. and others, and M/s. Akhilesh Traders vs. State of U.P. and others, placing reliance on the HC rulings, it claimed that the taxpayer should complete Part B of the e-way bill after April 2018.

In M/s. Akhilesh Traders, a coordinate bench ruled that documents provided after the interception of goods do not doubt the intent to evade tax. Reasons must be provided by the taxpayer for not filing the appropriate documents at a specific time. It ruled that,

Also Read: Delhi High Court: Section 129 CGST Act Cannot Penalize Minor GST E-Way Bill Errors

“The judgments upon which the petitioner is relying are from before April 2018, when there were some difficulties with the generation of e-way bills. But after April 2018, those difficulties have been resolved, and now there is no difficulty in generating and downloading the e-way bill.”

It was said by Justice Agarwal that in one e-way bill, Part-B was submitted after 1 hour of the interception, in the other invoice and e-way bill, the goods were being transported from Agra to Agra, when in reality, they were being transported from Agra to Noida. As per the court, the applicants’ conduct specifies that there is an intent to evade tax.

The writ petition was dismissed as per that.