In a recent decision by the Allahabad High Court, the detention of goods due to the non-declaration of a destination address, despite having a valid e-way bill, was deemed invalid. The case involved M/s Prostar M Info Systems Ltd., which was transporting goods internally between its units in Noida and Lucknow to fulfill a supply order for TCIL, with the final destination being Lucknow. The goods were accompanied by a valid e-way bill and a delivery challan. However, the vehicle was intercepted, and issues were raised about the delivery challan being unsigned and the destination address not being declared as an additional place of business.

The authorities imposed a penalty under Section 129(3), which was upheld on appeal. The central issue was whether the non-declaration of the destination as an additional place of business justified the detention and penalty, despite the presence of a valid e-way bill. The High Court referred to a State Circular from January 2024, which clarified that the non-declaration of the destination address should not trigger Section 129 penalties. The Court found no intent to evade tax, and the movement of goods was adequately covered by the e-way bill without any discrepancies in the documentation.

Read More: GST – Allahabad High Court: E-way bill generated after interception does not cure the violation; No evidence of glitch - Penalty upheld [Order attached]

Consequently, the High Court quashed the penalty and appellate orders, ruling the detention was unnecessary and lacked a legal basis. The writ petition filed by M/s Prostar M Info Systems Ltd. was allowed, setting a precedent that valid e-way bills sufficiently cover internal goods movement, even if the destination address is not declared as an additional business location.