Case Details
Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case No.: Writ Tax No. 830 of 2024
Parties: M/s Zhuzoor Infratech Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 & Another
Date of Judgment: 14.02.2025
Judge: Hon’ble Justice Piyush Agrawal
Dispute Category: GST Penalty – Wrong shipping address in e-way bill
Relevant Sections: Section 129, Section 68 of CGST Act; Rule 138 of CGST Rules (E-way Bill provisions)
Facts (Paras 3–6)
The petitioner, a registered dealer, supplied TMT bars from Jharkhand to New Delhi based on an order from Krishna Constellation Pvt. Ltd. The invoice correctly showed the New Delhi shipping address, but the auto-populated e-way bill displayed West Bengal (the petitioner’s registered address). Goods were intercepted in transit and penalty proceedings were initiated, though all documents including tax invoice, e-way bill, and consignment note accompanied the consignment.
The petitioner argued that this was a GST portal’s auto-population error, not a misrepresentation, and no discrepancies existed in goods’ quantity or quality.
Questions before the Court
-
Whether a technical mismatch in the shipping address between the e-invoice and auto-populated e-way bill justifies seizure and penalty?
-
Whether such proceedings are sustainable when no tax evasion, misstatement, or discrepancy in goods is found?
Observations (Paras 9–13)
The Court noted:
-
The only defect was a mismatch in shipping address between invoice (New Delhi) and e-way bill (West Bengal).
-
This was auto-populated by the GST portal and not denied by the State in its counter affidavit.
-
No discrepancy existed in goods’ quality or quantity.
-
E-way bill’s purpose is to inform the department of goods’ movement; if it is not cancelled within validity, genuineness of transaction cannot be doubted.
-
Reference was made to M/s Sun Flag Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2023:AHC:215906, where technical lapses in e-way bill were held not to justify penalty if movement was genuine.
Judgment (Paras 14–17)
The Court held that mere technical errors in the e-way bill cannot justify seizure or penalty when goods are genuine and duly supported by invoice and consignment note. Accordingly:
-
Orders dated 20.12.2022 (Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad, Kanpur) and 23.01.2024 (Appellate Authority) were quashed.
-
Any amount deposited by petitioner was directed to be refunded within two months.
Table of Precedents Referred
| Case | Citation | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| M/s Sun Flag Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. | 2023:AHC:215906 | Held that once e-way bill and invoice exist and are not cancelled, movement and genuineness of goods cannot be doubted merely for technical lapses. |
Between Fine Lines
For businesses, this ruling reinforces that GST enforcement should focus on tax evasion, not clerical mistakes caused by portal auto-population. If goods are genuine and invoices match, mere shipping address mismatch in e-way bill cannot justify penalty or seizure.
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.”