Order dated 30 July 2025 
Parties: M/s Shakuntalam Associates v. Addl. Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal)-V, Commercial Tax & Ors.

Facts -

• The petitioner’s goods were intercepted while in transit from Delhi to Delhi. Although the e-way bill, tax invoice, and bilty were available, the transporter’s name was not mentioned in the e-way bill. Based on the truck driver’s statement that goods were headed to Ghaziabad, the goods were seized, and penalty was imposed under Section 129(3) of the GST Act.
• The petitioner explained that the vehicle had temporarily diverted to a godown at Chikamberpur for full truck loading, and there was no intention to evade tax. Appeals against the order dated 30.04.2021 and the appellate order dated 23.10.2021 were dismissed.

Issue -

• Whether omission of the transporter’s name in the e-way bill, without evidence of intent to evade tax, is sufficient to impose penalty under Section 129 of the GST Act?

Order -

• The single bench of the high court held that the record further shows that in the grounds of appeal, specific averment has been made that the goods gone for full truck load to its godwon, which has not been denied at any stage. Further, in absence of any finding with regard to intention to evade payment of tax, the penalty proceedings under section 129 of the GST Act cannot be attracted and therefore, the same cannot be justified as held by this Court in M/s. Varun Beverages Limited v.State of U.P. and 2 others reported in 2023 U.P.T.C. (113) 331.
• In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 30.04.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the impugned appellate order dated 23.10.2021 passed by the respondent no. 1 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The same are hereby quashed.