Order date: 06 Aug 2025 
Parties:  Raju Ujir / M/S R.R. Enterprises v. State of U.P. & Ors.

Facts -

• Goods in transit from Delhi to Telangana were intercepted at Agra, U.P. No e-way bill was produced at the time of inspection; the purchasing dealer’s registration had been suspended but was later restored. The goods were accompanied by a valid tax invoice showing no quantity or quality discrepancy. 
• Authorities imposed penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of the GST Act and upheld it on appeal. The petitioner argued the case fell under Section 129(1)(a) as documents were otherwise in order.

Issue -

• Whether penalty under Section 129(1)(b) was justified when goods in transit were accompanied by a valid tax invoice but no e-way bill was produced at the time of inspection?

Order -

• The division bench of the Hon’ble High court noted that although absence of an e-way bill suggests intent to evade tax, the presence of a valid tax invoice meant proceedings ought to be under Section 129(1)(a), as per Clause 6 of the 31.12.2018 Circular and precedents in Halder Enterprises and Shahil Traders. 
• Tax invoice was accompanied with the goods in transit. In view of the Clause 6 of the Circular dated 31.12.2018 wherein it has specifically been stated that if tax invoice or any other specified document are accompanied with the consignment then either the consignor or the consignee should be deemed to be the owner of the goods.
• In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of case as stated above, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned orders are modified to the extent that the impugned orders must be treated as passed under Section 129 (1) (a) of the GST Act.