The Allahabad High Court ruled in favor of M/s Archana Plasmould, a GST-registered manufacturer of plastic moulds, in a case concerning the imposition of a penalty due to a technical lapse in the e-way bill process. The issue arose when the company's goods vehicle was intercepted, and it was discovered that Part B of the e-way bill was unfilled because of a technical error. Despite all other documents being in order and consistent with the goods in transit, authorities imposed a penalty under Section 129(3) of the GST Act, which was subsequently upheld upon appeal.
The main legal question was whether a penalty could be imposed solely for the non-filling of Part B of the e-way bill when there was no intent to evade tax. The court found that there was no evidence or allegation of tax evasion, and the failure to fill Part B was due to a technical glitch. Citing precedents such as Tata Hitachi, the court concluded that a penalty under Section 129(3) is unjustified in the absence of any mala fide intent.
Read More: GST - West Bengal AAR – Construction of “Service Apartments” approved as Commercial by Municipal Authority cannot be treated as Residential Project under GST; Not exempt [Order attached]
Consequently, the court quashed the impugned orders and directed that any penalty amount already paid be refunded within two months. The writ petition filed by M/s Archana Plasmould was allowed, setting a precedent that technical lapses without intent to evade tax should not attract penalties under the GST framework.
Order date: 10 Nov 2025
Parties: M/s Archana Plasmould v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Facts –
- The petitioner, a GST-registered manufacturer of plastic moulds, was intercepted on 25.07.2024 when the goods vehicle’s Part B of the e-way bill was found unfilled due to a technical error.
- All other documents — tax invoice, registration, and e-way bill Part A — were valid and consistent with the goods in transit.
- Authorities imposed a penalty under Section 129(3) and rejected the appeal despite no allegation of tax evasion.
Issue –
- Whether a penalty under Section 129(3) can be imposed solely for non-filling of Part B of the e-way bill when there is no evidence of intent to evade tax?
Order –
- The Court found that no finding of intention to evade tax was recorded by the authorities.
- It accepted that the failure to fill Part B arose due to a technical glitch, and all other documents were in order.
- Relying on Tata Hitachi and other precedents, the Court held that non-filling of Part B alone does not justify penalty under Section 129(3) in absence of mala fide intent.
- The impugned orders dated 13.01.2025 and 27.07.2024 were quashed, and any amount deposited toward penalty was directed to be refunded within two months.
- The writ petition was allowed.
