The Allahabad High Court ruled against M/s. Mohini Traders and M/s. Mohan Agencies in a case concerning the validity of an e-way bill generated after the interception of goods. The case arose when the petitioners' goods were stopped on January 10, 2020, at 7:53 a.m. without an accompanying e-way bill. The required e-way bill was only generated later that day at 1:19 p.m., after the interception but before any penalty was formally imposed. Despite this, the authorities levied a tax and penalty under Section 129, which was upheld on appeal.
The central issue was whether the generation of an e-way bill after the interception of goods could rectify the lapse and avoid penalties. The court held that the e-way bill must be in place at the start of the transport journey. Generating it after interception does not comply with statutory requirements, and thus, the lapse could not be remedied post-factum. The court emphasized that the timing of the e-way bill generation, as recorded in Form MOV-06, was crucial and went against the petitioners.
In its decision, the court distinguished the present case from Axpress Logistics, where an existing but unproduced e-way bill was involved. Instead, it aligned with the precedent set in Aysha Builders & Suppliers v. State of U.P., reinforcing that e-way bills generated post-interception are insufficient to cure statutory breaches. Consequently, the court sustained the penalty and dismissed the writ petitions.
Order date: 28 Aug 2025
Parties: M/s. Mohini Traders & M/s. Mohan Agencies v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Facts -
- Petitioners’ goods were intercepted on 10.01.2020 at 07:53 a.m. without an e-way bill.
- The e-way bill was generated later the same day at 01:19 p.m., after interception but before penalty order. Authorities imposed tax and penalty under Section 129; appeal was dismissed.
Issue -
- Whether generation of an e-way bill after interception but before penalty order validates the transport and avoids penalty?
Order -
- The single bench of the Hon’ble high court held that an e-way bill must exist at the time of commencement of transport; generating one after interception is contrary to the statutory framework and cannot be accepted as compliance.
- The admitted fact, recorded in Form MOV-06, that the e-way bill was generated only after the interception was decisive against the petitioners.
- Reliance on Axpress Logistics was misplaced because in that case the bill existed but was not produced; here the bill was generated only after interception. Following the Division Bench ruling in Aysha Builders & Suppliers v. State of U.P., the Court upheld the penalty and dismissed the writ petitions, reiterating that post-interception e-way bills cannot cure statutory lapses.
