Case Details: Zhuzoor Infratech (P.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner Grade - [2025] 172 taxmann.com 759 (Allahabad)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Piyush Agrawal, J.
- Nitin Kumar Kesarwani, for the Petitioner.
- Ravi Shanker Pandey, ACSC, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner placed an order for 16mm TMT Bars with delivery to New Delhi, and the e-way bill was auto-populated by the GST portal with a shipping address in West Bengal, while the tax invoice mentioned New Delhi. The goods were intercepted during transit due to the discrepancy in the shipping address, but no issues were found with the quantity or quality of the goods.
The petitioner argued that the e-way bill was auto-generated by the GST system, and the discrepancy in the shipping address was a technical error. The petitioner submitted that there was no issue with the quantity or quality of the goods, and the purpose of the e-way bill—to inform the authorities about the movement of goods—was fulfilled. Therefore, the seizure and penalty were unjustified.
High Court Held
The Allahabad High Court held that a technical error in the shipping address on the e-way bill, without any discrepancies in the goods’ quantity or quality, could not justify the seizure or penalty. The e-way bill served its purpose of informing authorities about the movement of goods, and since it wasn’t canceled within its validity, the Court quashed the penalty orders and directed a refund of any deposited amounts.
List of Cases Reviewed
- M/s Sun Flag Iron and Steel Company Limited v. State of UP and others Neutral Citation No.: 2023:AHC:215906 – (para 13) followed
The post Discrepancy in Shipping Address on E-Way Bill Cannot Be Sole Basis for Seizure of Goods | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
