Carrying a valid E-Way Bill is mandatory for the movement of goods from one place to another

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that carrying a valid E-Way Bill is mandatory for the movement of goods. This decision upholds penalties imposed on a power generation company for transporting goods with an expired E-Way Bill and a mismatch in vehicle details. The court clarified that amendments to the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules from April 1, 2018, made compliance with E-Way Bills obligatory, distinguishing this case from earlier ones where leniency was shown for pre-April 2018 transactions.

The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in M/s. Lalitpur Power Generation Company Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors [Writ Tax No. 595 of 2023, dated April 15, 2025] dismissed the writ petition and upheld the penalty imposed under Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("the UPGST Act") on the ground that, unlike earlier cases where relief was granted for transactions prior to April 2018, the implementation of the 14th Amendment to the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules ("the UPGST Rules"),w.e.f. April 01, 2018, made carrying a valid e-way bill during goods transit mandatory.

Facts:

M/s. Lalitpur Power Generation Company Ltd. ("the Petitioner") is engaged in the generation of electricity and operates a thermal power plant in Lalitpur district. During transportation of goods from its Jhansi godown to Power Plant, the vehicle was intercepted. Upon inspection, it was found that one e-way bill had expired and another declared a different vehicle number contrary to declared in Part B of the e-way bill.

The vehicle was detained and a Show Cause Notice was issued under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act. As the reply was not found satisfactory, a Penalty Order ("the Impugned Order") was passed by the Assistant Commissioner ("the Respondent") under Section 129(1) of the UPGST Act. The penalty was paid by the Petitioner, and the vehicle, along with the goods, was released. Subsequently, an appeal was filed by the Petitioner, but it was dismissed.

The Petitioner contended that all necessary documents including tax invoices and consignment notes were available at the time of interception. Further, the Petitioner contended that the discrepancy in vehicle number and the expired e-way bill was unintentional and did not imply any attempt to evade tax.

On the other hand, the Respondent contended that goods were transported in violation of Section 68 of UPGST Act and Rule 138-A UPGST Rules, as the e-way bill had expired and vehicle mismatch amounted to non-compliance, leading to presumption of tax evasion. Further argued that the judgment relied upon by the Petitioner relate to the period where the detention of goods was prior to April, 2018.

Hence, aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

Issue:

Whether carrying a valid e-way bill is mandatory for the movement of goods from one place to another?

Held:

The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Writ Tax No. 595 of 2023held as under:

• Observed that, the question whether carrying valid e-way bill is mandatory for the movement of goods from one place to another is no more res integra after the 14th Amendment of the UPGST Rules, which came into effect from April 01, 2018. Further pointed out that post amendment in the Rule, it has become obligatory that goods should be accompanied with valid e-way bill.

· Relied that,in the case ofM/s. Akhilesh Traders vs. State of U.P. and Ors, (Writ Tax No. 1109 of 2019 dated February 20, 2024), the Hon'ble Allahabad HighCourt held that when goods are not accompanied by an e-way bill, apresumption of intent to evade tax arises, which can be rebutted by presenting relevant materials. Further, in M/s. Jhansi Enterprises, Nandanpura, Jhansi v. State of U.P. and Ors, (Writ Tax No. 1081 of 2019 dated March 01, 2024), theHon'ble Allahabad High Court reaffirmed that merely furnishing documents after interceptiondoes not establishlack of intent to evade tax. The Court concluded that Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act was correctly applied, as the Petitioner failed to justify the absence of required documents at the time of interception.

· Observed that, Rule 138 of the UPGST Rules provides that complete and valid e-way bill is mandatory for commencement of movement of goods.

· Held that, the judgments mentioned by the Petitioner are distinguishable in the facts of the present case as in those cases, the transaction was prior to April, 2018 where the benefit was given to those assesses. However, after the 14th Amendment to the UPGST Rules, it is mandatory on the part of the seller to download the valid e-way bill once the goods are put in transit.. .

Our Comments:

Section 68 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("the CGST Act") deals with "Inspection of goods in movement". Further, section 68(1) and section 68(2) of the CGST Act states that the person in charge of a conveyance carrying goods above a specified value must carry prescribed documents. If the conveyance is intercepted, the proper officer may verify the documents and inspect the goods.

Rule 138 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 ("the CGSTRules")governs 'Information to be furnished prior to commencement of movement of goods and generation of e-way bill' and it mandates that the registered person who causes movement of goods of consignment exceeding INR 50,000/- shall furnish information relating to the said goods in Part A of FORM GST EWB-01 for commencement of the movement of the goods. Additionally, if the goods are being transported by the registered person or recipient using any mode of transport, they may generate the e-way bill by completing Part B of Form GST EWB-01 electronically on the common portal.

Rule 138A of the CGST Rules deals with "documents and devices to be carried by the person in charge of a conveyance". Further, Rule 138A (1)of the CGST Rules requires carrying an invoice, bill of supply, or delivery challan, along with a physical or electronic copy of the e-way bill.

In a pari materia case of Ashwin Auto Cast (P.) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [2024] 91 GSTL 174,in which Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the writ petition, holding that the expired e-way bill was not extended as required. The Court rejected the Petitioner's defense of vehicle breakdown, stating that timely extension was mandatory. Since the vehicle couldn't have reached its destination before expiry, the penalty was justified.

OFFICIAL JUDGMENT COPY HAS BEEN ATTACHED