News

While passing an interim relief against a special leave appeal filed against the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gati Kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd, the Supreme Court ordered the department to release the goods. A division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in July, upheld a penalty order passed by the GST department, held that filing Part-B of the E-Way Bill is a mandatory requirement and the failure to do the same would attract penalty under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.


Petitioner is a leading transportation company, has failed to give the details in Part-B of the e-way bill i.e., the details of conveyance in the e-way bill and the common portal in Part-B of Form GST EWB-01. The authorities imposed the penalty on the petitioner for the violation of the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act.

he petitioners submitted that due to the technical error, Part-B of the e-way bill cannot be updated. However, the authorities denied the contention because the portal of the goods or service tax provides for an option of grievance in case the petitioner was having any problem in updating the Part-B of the e-way bill. No such grievance has been raised by the petitioner and he has never given any written grievance. The bench comprising Justices P. K. Jaiswal and S. K. Awasthi, refused to follow the decision and held that “in that case it was held that the distance was within 50 kilometres and, therefore, the petitioner therein was not under an obligation to fill the Part-B of the e-way bill and the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has rightly quashed the order.” Dismissing the writ petition, “In the present case, the distance was more than 1200-1300 kilometres and it is mandatory for the petitioner to file the Part-B of the e-way bill giving all the details including the vehicle number before the goods are loaded in the vehicle. Thus, he admittedly violated the provisions of the Rules and Act of 2017 and, learned Authority rightly imposed the penalty and directed the petitioner to pay the same. The order is not in violation of any of the provisions of the Rules and Act of 2017.”

While admitting the Special leave Petition, Justice A.K Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan held that “we are of the opinion that the vehicle which is seized along with the consignments should be released to the applicant/petitioner. This order shall be subject to the further order that shall be passed by this Court in the special leave petition.”