The Allahabad High Court upheld a penalty imposed on M/s VRS Foods Ltd. for transporting goods without the necessary documentation. The case involved the company's sale of battery scrap to M/s Shiva Traders, during which the vehicle carrying the goods was intercepted while being diverted for weighment. At the time of interception, no documents were present, leading to the detention of the goods on February 28, 2022, and a subsequent penalty order under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act. Although the appellate authority later reduced the penalty to ₹1,43,100, the petitioner contended that the movement was exempt under Rule 138(14)(n) due to the weighment being within a 20 km radius and argued there was no intention to evade tax.

Read More: GST - Madras High Court (Madurai Bench): Since Orders were only uploaded on the portal and never otherwise intimated, limitation period for appeal had not started

The core issue was whether the penalty under Section 129(3) was justified when goods were moved for weighment without accompanying documents. The court ruled that documents must accompany goods during transit, and their later production cannot rectify the initial non-compliance. The court clarified that Rule 138(14)(n) does not eliminate the requirement for a delivery challan or e-way bill in cases of weighment. Accepting the petitioner's argument, the court noted, would undermine Section 129 by allowing justifications to be concocted after the fact. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed, and the penalty was confirmed as valid.