GST LogoGST Press

Panasonic India Pvt Ltd Vs Addditional Commissioner

Date: July 31, 2025

Court: High Court
Bench: Allahabad
Type: Writ Petition
Judge(s)/Member(s): Piyush Agrawal
Download

Subject Matter

Detention Order for Expired E-way Bill Quashed when New Bill Produced Pre-Seizure

E-Way BillPenalty

Summary

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention and seizure, based on an expired e-way bill, is quashed because a new e-way bill was generated and produced before the formal detention/seizure order was passed, and no intent to evade tax was established by the authorities.

Summary of Facts and Dispute:
  1. Impugned Action: The goods in transit from Alipur, New Delhi to Rajnagar, Ghaziabad were intercepted and detained/seized on June 18, 2018, at T.P. Nagar, Ghaziabad, on the ground that the accompanying e-way bill, generated on June 15, 2018, had expired on June 16, 2018.
  2. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that although the initial e-way bill expired, a new one was generated and presented before the detention/seizure order was passed, indicating no intention to evade tax. The delay in transit was attributed to the driver's unavailability due to Eid.
  3. Core Question of Law: Can goods be detained or seized solely for an expired e-way bill if a new e-way bill is generated and produced before the formal detention/seizure order is issued, and no intent to evade tax is proven?
Key Legal Issues & Findings:
Validity of Detention Based on Expired E-Way Bill when New Bill is Produced

The Court relied on M/S Aa Plastics Pvt Ltd Vs. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 and 2 others and Assistant Commissioner (ST) Vs. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd., 2022 (57) G.S.T.L. 97 (S.C.)

. *

Lack of Basis for Tax Evasion:

The authorities' observation that the petitioner might have made multiple rounds to evade tax due to the expired e-way bill was found to be without any basis or material in support thereof. *

Effect of New E-Way Bill:

A new e-way bill was generated and presented before the detention/seizure order could be passed, and the authorities failed to give due weightage to this new e-way bill and did not record any finding of intent to evade tax. *

Precedent Applicability: The issue at hand is covered by the judgment in Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd.

Ruling:
  1. Outcome: The impugned order dated February 29, 2020, passed in GST Appeal No. 1147/2019, A.Y.-2018-19, is hereby quashed.
  2. Directions: Any amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order shall be refunded to the petitioner within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
  3. Liberty: None

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

1. Heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S. Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 29.02.2020 passed by respondent no.1 in the GST Appeal No.1147/2019, A.Y.-2018-19.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the goods were in transit from Alipur, New Delhi to to Rajnagar, Ghaziabad along with all requisite document i.e. tax invoice, G.R. and e-way bill, but the e-way bill accompanying the goods in transit had expired on 16.06.2018.

4. He further submits that though the e-way bill and the other documents were generated on 15.06.2018, but could not moved on 16.06.2018 as the driver of the vehicle left the goods and and vehicle in question at the business premises of the consignor and to celebrate Eid with his family at Rampur, U.P. without informing the consignor. Thereafter, on 17.06.2018, the driver came back to the business premises of the consignor and left for Ghaziabad with the vehicle and the goods in question, which was intercepted on 18.06.2018 by respondent no.2 at T.P. Nagar, Ghaziabad and the goods in question were detained/seized on the ground that the goods in question were being transported beyond the validity of transit period mentioned on the e-way bill accompanying the goods in question, however, the new e-way bill was generated and the same was produced even before the seizure/detention order could be passed and therefore, no intention to evade the payment of of tax can be attributed, but the authorities have not given due weightage to it.

5. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in the case of M/S Aa Plastics Pvt Ltd Vs. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 and 2 others (Writ Tax No. 1006 of 2022) as well as he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the cases of Assistant Commissioner (ST) Vs. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd., 2022 (57) G.S.T.L. 97 (S.C.).

6. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel supports the impugned order. He submits that the documents were generated on 15.06.2025, but the goods were seized on 18.06.2018 i.e. two days after. He further submits that in the garb of e-way bill, the petitioner might have transported the goods in question to its destination without having valid e-way bill and therefore, the proceedings have rightly been initiated.

7. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record.

8. It is not in dispute that the goods in question were accompanied with the requisite documents including the e-way bill which was generated on 15.06.2018, and at the time of interception, the same was produced which had expired on 16.06.2018, and therefore, an inference has been drawn against the petitioner meaning thereby the petitioner in the garb of documents such as tax invoice dated 15.06.2018 and e-way bill generated on 15.06.2018, must have taken the multiple rounds to U.P. and evaded the tax. The said observation is without any basis or material in support thereof.

9. The record shows otherwise. The new e-way bill was generated and was presented before the detention/seizure order could be passed, the authorities have also failed to record any finding to evade payment of tax. In short, first, the e-way bill dated 15.06.2018 is alleged to be expired on 16.06.2018, but no weightage has been given for the new e-way bill, which was also presented before passing of the seizure and the penalty order.

10. The issue in hand is covered by the judgment of Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd., (supra).

11. In view of the above facts as stated as well as law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

13. Any amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order, shall be refunded to the petitioner within a month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.