M/S Varun Beverages Limited v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 958 of 2019

Petitioner :- M/S Varun Beverages Limited Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shubham Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Heard Sri Shubham Agrwal, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Sri R.S. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

This writ petition has been filed assailing the penalty order

dated 12.06.2018 passed by respondent no. 2 and the order

dated 01.07.2019 passed by appellate authority, respondent no.

The petitioner before this Court is a registered dealer under the

Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter called as "Act of

2017"). It is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale

of aerated water, fruit juice based drinks etc. The dealer was

making a stock transfer from its unit at Gautam Buddha Nagar,

Greater NOIDA depot to a sale depot at Kuberpur, Agra. The

goods were being shifted through Truck No. HR-73/6755 which

was accompanying delivery challan, e-way bill and bilty on

10.06.2018. The mobile squad on 10.06.2018 intercepted the

goods and detained the vehicle in question along with the goods

on the premise that in the e-way bill the vehicle number has

been mentioned as UP-13T/6755. Detention order was passed

on 11.06.2018. Thereafter, a penalty order under Section 129(3)

of the Act of 2017 was passed imposing a tax of Rs.1,86,834/-

and penalty of the same amount, totaling Rs.3,73,668. Against

the said order, an appeal under Section 107 of the Act was

preferred by the dealer before the Additional Commissioner,

Grade-II (Appeal-III) Commercial Tax, Agra. The appeal was

dismissed vide order impugned dated 01.07.2019. Hence, the

Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that it was a case of stock transfer by the dealer from

its unit at Gautam Buddha Nagar to sale depot at Agra. The

goods which were in transit were accompanied by necessary

documents and the e-way bill. The only mistake on the part of

the person in-charge who had downloaded the e-way bill was

wrong entry of the Vehicle No. UP-13T in place of HR-73.

Except this fact the goods were being transported along with all

the necessary documents. According to learned counsel, there

was no intention to evade the tax on behalf of dealer and

reliance has been placed upon decision of the Apex Court in

case of Assistant Commissioner (ST) and others vs. M/s.

Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. and another, 2022 UPTC

(110) 269. The said judgment has been relied upon by Division

Bench of this Court in case of M/s. Gobind Tobacco

Manufacturing Corporation and another vs. State of U.P.

and others, 2022 UPTC (111) 1080. Reliance has also been

placed upon another Division Bench judgment of this Court in

case of M/s. Ramdev Trading Company and another vs.

State of U.P. and others, 2017 UPTC 1200.

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the circular

of the year 2018 issued by the Commissioner provides that in

case of any mistake in entering details of the transporter in the

e-way bill, one or two digit can be ignored by the taxing

authorities, but where the entire digit as has been entered in the

e-way bill is not matching with the vehicle in transit, the

explanation afforded by the dealer cannot be accepted. He

further contends that the registration number of vehicle through

which the goods were in transit was HR-73/6755, while the

number entered in the e-way bill was UP-13T/6755.

I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the

The sole controversy engaging the attention of the Court is as to

whether the wrong mention of number of Vehicle No. HR-

73/6755 through which the goods were in transit and detained

by the taxing authorities would be considered as a human error

and will be covered under the circular No. 41/15/2018-GST

dated 13.04.2018 and 49/23/2018-GST dated 21.06.2018, as the

number mentioned in the e-way bill was UP-13T/6755 and the

mistake is of only of HR-73 in place of U.P.-13T.

It is not in dispute that goods were being transported by the

dealer through stock transfer from its unit at Gautam Buddha

Nagar to its sale depot at Agra. The bilty which is the document

of the transporter mentions the vehicle number as HR-73/6755.

From perusal of the e-way bill which has been brought on

record, it is clear that the vehicle number has been mentioned as

UP-13T/6755. It is apparently clear that mistake is as far as the

registration of the vehicle in a particular State and in place of

HR-73, UP-13T has been mentioned in the e-way bill, while

number of the vehicle 6755 is same.

As there is no dispute to the fact that it is a case of stock

transfer and there is no intention on the part of dealer to evade

any tax, the minor discrepancy as to the registration of vehicle

in State in the e-way bill would not attract proceedings for

penalty under Section 129 and the order passed by the detaining

authority as well as first appellate authority cannot be sustained.

Moreover, the Department has not placed before the Court any

other material so as to bring on record that there was any

intention on the part of the dealer to evade tax except the wrong

mention of part of registration number of the vehicle in the e-

way bill. The vehicle through which the goods were transported

and the bilty showed the one and the same number while only

there is a minor discrepancy in Part-B of the e-way bill where

the description of the vehicle is entered by the dealer.

In view of said fact, the orders dated 12.06.2018 and

01.07.2019 are unsustainable in the eyes of law and both the

orders are hereby set aside.

Writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.

Order Date :- 2.2.2023 V.S.Singh

2023-02-02T17:57:39+0530 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad