Case Title: M/s Vishalfab (India) Pvt. Ltd. Unit 2 v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench
Petition Number: Writ Petition No. 27287 of 2022
Category: Penalty under Section 129 – Invalid E-Way Bill (Part-B missing)
Date of Judgment: 9 July 2025
Relevant Sections: Section 129 & 126 of CGST Act, 2017; Rule 138 of MPGST Rules, 2017
Facts (Para 2–3):
The petitioner, M/s Vishalfab (India) Pvt. Ltd., engaged in manufacturing electronic components, imported machinery from China in 2016. Goods were cleared from Nhava Sheva Port, Maharashtra, upon payment of IGST of ₹1,48,524. The goods were transported to Indore under an e-way bill generated on 09.08.2018. However, Part-B (vehicle details) of the e-way bill was not filled. On 11.08.2018, the truck was intercepted by the Anti-Evasion Bureau, which seized the goods under Section 129(1) of the GST Act for incomplete documentation. The adjudicating authority confirmed the tax and equal penalty totaling ₹2,99,208. The appellate authority upheld this decision, leading to the present writ petition.
Questions of Law (Para 3–5):
Whether omission to fill Part-B of the e-way bill—containing vehicle number—constitutes a minor procedural breach rectifiable under Section 126, or a substantive contravention justifying penalty under Section 129 of the CGST Act?
Observations (Para 7–16):
The Court analyzed Section 129 (detention/seizure of goods) and Section 126 (general discipline for penalties) of the CGST Act, read with Rule 138 of MPGST Rules. It emphasized that Part-B is mandatory for a valid e-way bill as it contains transport vehicle details. The petitioner’s claim that the transporter was responsible to fill Part-B was rejected—Rule 138(2) places the primary obligation on the registered person.
The Court noted that goods worth ₹7,62,247 were transported over 800 km without Part-B for two days—constituting gross negligence, not a minor breach. The lapse was not “easily rectifiable” under Section 126(1)(b) Explanation. The Court distinguished prior judgments such as Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. and Technosteel Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. where genuine clerical mistakes were involved.
Judgment (Para 17):
The Division Bench (Justices Vivek Rusia and Binod Kumar Dwivedi) held that failure to generate Part-B of the e-way bill before movement of goods was a substantive contravention of Rule 138 and Section 129. The order confirming IGST and penalty of ₹2,99,208 was upheld. The writ petition was dismissed.
Summary of Cases Referred
| Case Name | Citation | Ratio Decidendi | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assistant Commissioner (ST) v. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. | 2022 (57) GSTL 97 (SC) | Expiry of e-way bill one day prior held minor lapse with no intent to evade tax. | Penalty quashed. |
| Technosteel Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M.P. | 2022 (61) GSTL 576 (MP) | Mistake in address on e-way bill treated as bona fide error. | Order under Sec. 129 quashed. |
| Robbins Tunnelling & Trenchless Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M.P. | 2021 (48) GSTL 337 (MP) | Minor discrepancy in e-way bill not material to goods movement. | Order set aside. |
| M/s Gati Kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Commercial Tax of M.P. | W.P. No. 12399 of 2018 (MP HC) | Part-B of e-way bill is mandatory; non-upload renders bill invalid. | Penalty upheld. |
Between Fine Lines (Practical Takeaway):
Failure to fill Part-B of an e-way bill is not a mere procedural lapse—it invalidates the e-way bill and invites detention and penalty under Section 129. Businesses must ensure both parts of e-way bills are duly generated before goods movement, as courts treat such omissions as negligence, not as minor clerical errors.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
