Case Title: Manish Packaging Private Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench
Petition No.: Writ Petition No. 20797 of 2022
Judgment Date: 25 July 2025
Category: Detention of goods / Rule 138 – Validity of E-Way Bill (Part B not entered)
Relevant Provisions: Section 129 & 68 of CGST/MPGST Act, 2017; Rule 138 of MPGST Rules, 2017
Facts (Paras 2–3)
Manish Packaging Pvt. Ltd., a registered manufacturer and exporter of plastic films under Chapter 39, exported PVC film to Nepal through a transporter under an E-Way Bill generated only with Part A details (without Part B vehicle details). The goods were detained by the Anti-Evasion Wing, Indore. Despite furnishing bond and bank guarantee of ₹7.16 lakh for release, the adjudicating authority levied IGST and equal penalty under Section 129. The appeal against the order was dismissed, leading to this writ petition.
Questions Before the Court
-
Whether non-filling of Part B of the E-Way Bill renders the consignment invalid under GST laws, even for exports?
-
Whether detention and levy of IGST with penalty under Section 129 were justified?
-
Whether the proceedings violated principles of natural justice?
Observations (Paras 6–11)
The Bench reviewed Section 129 of the CGST/MPGST Act and Rule 138 of the MPGST Rules, emphasizing that both Part A and Part B of the E-Way Bill are mandatory for goods movement above ₹50,000.
It noted that the E-Way Bill itself bore the remark “Not valid for movement as Part B is not entered (2001 km)”, confirming the violation. The Court held that generation of Part B is not a mere procedural formality but a statutory requirement ensuring traceability of vehicle and consignment.
It observed that absence of Part B renders the E-Way Bill invalid, irrespective of the export nature of goods, and upheld the authorities’ action under Section 129.
Judgment (Paras 11–12)
The Court held that:
-
The E-Way Bill without Part B is invalid for transportation.
-
There was a clear contravention of Section 68 of CGST/MPGST Act and Rule 138.
-
The penalty and IGST demand were lawfully imposed.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no costs.
Cases Referred
| Case Name | Citation / Court | Verdict / Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Robbins Tunnelling & Trenchless Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M.P. | 2021 (48) GSTL 337 (MP) | Earlier case where detention quashed as there was no major lapse in E-Way Bill; distinguished by Court as inapplicable here due to total absence of Part B. |
| Daya Shankar Singh v. State of M.P. | (2022) 65 GSTL 12 | Relied upon by petitioner; not applicable due to admitted procedural default. |
| Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. State of U.P. | (2023) 71 GSTL 214 (All HC) | Single Bench ruling cited for liberal interpretation; not followed as facts differ. |
Between Fine Lines (Trade Takeaway)
Even export consignments must carry a valid, complete E-Way Bill. Part B is not optional—its absence makes movement illegal and attracts detention, tax, and equal penalty under Section 129. Exporters and logistics operators should ensure real-time vehicle detail updates in E-Way Bills to avoid costly litigation.
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.”
