Order Date – 28 August 2023

Parties: J.K. Cement Ltd. Vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 

Facts –

• The Petitioner, J.K. Cement Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cements, wall putty, adhesives etc. transported goods from Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, to Panna, Madhya Pradesh, passing through Uttar Pradesh.
• The authorities in Uttar Pradesh detained the goods for not having an e-way bill, imposing a penalty.
• The petitioner argued that the goods in question during transit, were not required to carry e-way bill on its movement within the State of Madhya Pradesh and the goods were accompanying with all requisite documents such as tax invoices and G.R on which no discrepancy whatsoever was found.

Issue –

• Whether the imposition of a penalty for not carrying an e-way bill within Uttar Pradesh, when the goods' origin and destination were both in Madhya Pradesh, was justified?

Order – 

• The Single Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that the goods were originated from Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh and its destination was Panna, Madhya Pradesh.  The State of Madhya Pradesh has issued a notification dated 24.4.2018 mentioning therein 11 items for which  only the e-way bills are required during transport and other items were exempted from accompanying the e-way bill. It is not a case of the respondent authorities that the goods which were detained and were being unloaded in State of UP or found to be unloaded in State of UP or intent to be unloaded in State of UP  but on the contrary  it has been accepted by both the authorities below that the goods were in transit and its final destination was Panna, Madhya Pradesh then mainly because the goods were not accompanying the e-way bill, the seizure ought not to have been made as in the case in hand in State of Madhya Pradesh, the said goods were exempted from carrying the e-way bill at the relevant point of time.
• It is informed at bar that if the goods are coming from Gwalior Madhya Pradesh to Panna, Madhya Pradesh, it has to pass through Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh for a short distance to enter again in Madhya Pradesh for its final destination at Panna, Madhya Pradesh.
• It is also found that it is categorically mentioned that the origination as well as termination of the goods in question was in State of Madhya Pradesh meaning thereby the authorities are of the view that the goods were not to be unloaded in the State of UP or any intention to avoid tax.
• However, mainly on the ground of some small technical fault for not carrying the e-way bill, the penalty ought not to have been levied in the absence of any discrepancy in document accompanying the goods. In view of above, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
• The writ petition is allowed and any amount already deposited by the petitioner during pendency of the present litigation, shall be refunded to him