Mandatory To Fill Part B Of E-Way Bill In Transactions After April 2018: Allahabad High Court

Distinguishing the earlier judgment of the High Court 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 held

“Reliance placed upon the judgments is distinguishable in the facts of the present case as in those cases, the transaction was prior to 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 e-way bill and non filling of Part B would not absolve the liability under the Act.”

Petitioner firm was transferring goods from its Agra Headquarter to Ghaziabad Branch. Two invoices and corresponding e-way bills were generated. When the goods were intercepted at Greater Noida, physical verification was carried out. The goods were detained on grounds that Part-B of the e-way bill was not filled.

Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which petitioner filed a reply. Thereafter, order under Section 129(3) was passed against the petitioner imposing penalty. Petitioner deposited the entire amount for release of vehicles. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the order was rejected.

Challenging the penalty order and the order of the appellate authority, petitioner argued that all other documents were complete and only Part-B of the E-way bill was not filed. Counsel for petitioner relied on earlier decisions of the Allahabad High Court 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 had held that mere non-filing of Part-B of the e-way bill does not prove intention to evade tax.

Per contra, counsel for department argued that intention to evade tax was established as one of the e-way bills showed that goods were travelling from Agra to Agra, whereas they were being transported from Agra to Noida. It was further submitted that since Part-B was not filed, the goods could be brought in multiple times using the same document as the time limit had not started.

Placing reliance on the judgments of the High Court 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, it was argued that it was mandatory for the assesses to complete Part-B of e-way bill after April 2018.

In M/s. Akhilesh Traders a coordinate bench had held that documents furnished after interception of goods does not negate intention to evade tax. The assesee was required to show reasons as to why proper documents could not be furnished at the proper time. It further held

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

Justice Agarwal observed that while in one e-way bill, Part-B was filed an hour after the interception, in the other invoice and e-way bill it was mentioned that the goods were being transported from Agra to Agra, when in reality, they were being transported from Agra to Noida. The Court held that the conduct of the petitioner showed intention to evade tax.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Title: M/S B M Computers v. Commissioner Commercial Taxes And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 1559 of 2024 ]

Click Here To Read/Download The Order