Goods loaded in two trucks with one e-way bill stating both truck numbers – No evasion

When goods are loaded in two trucks with one e-way bill specifically mentioning both truck numbers, no intention to evade payment of tax can be attributed.

In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that when goods could not be accommodated in one truck and therefore, loaded in two trucks and one e-way bill was generated specifically mentioning both the truck numbers, no intention to evade payment of tax can be attributed.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4875 (2025) (11) abcaus.in HC

In the instant case, the Petitioner had challenged dismissal of his appeal and order passed u/s 129(3) of GST Act 2017 for seizure of goods.

In this case, the goods in question were on its onward journey from Greater Noida (UP) to Bangalore (Karnataka) accompanying with all requisite documents, i.e., tax invoice, e-way bill, RR, etc.

Since the goods could not be accommodated in one truck as it was a large machine and therefore, the same was loaded in two trucks. The fact of use of more than one vehicle and both truck numbers were specifically mentioned in the e-way bill.

However, the but goods were seized and an order under section 129(3) of the GST Act was passed, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed.

Before the Hon’ble High Court, the Petitioner submitted that since there was a clear-cut disclosure made by the petitioner in the accompanying document, the goods were seized illegally. It was further submitted that in the e-way bill, both the vehicle numbers were mentioned and on the top, multi vehicle was also mentioned, which clearly demonstrates that the details of goods were duly disclosed in the e-way bill and therefore, there was no intention to evade payment of tax.

In support of his contentions, the Petitioners relied upon judgments of Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that one goods were intercepted and detained on the premise that the goods in question were not duly accompanying with documents. In reply to the notice, it was specifically stated that sorter is a machine which cannot be accommodated in one truck and therefore, two trucks were used for loading the same and on the invoice, multi vehicle was specifically mentioned and at the bottom of eway bill, two truck numbers were duly mentioned. The said fact was not disbelieved, but still the seizure order was passed.

Th Hon’ble High Court observed that it is a matter of common knowledge that once the goods cannot be accommodated in one truck, though issued by one tax invoice, can always be accommodated in two trucks and the e-way bill for each truck should have been generated, but in the case in hand, only one e-way bill was generated specifically mentioning both the truck numbers, which were in transit and the goods in question were loaded as well as on the e-way bill, multi vehicle was also mentioned. Once the disclosure has duly been made in the e-way bill, no intention to evade payment of tax can be attributed.

The Hon’ble High Court held that there was no contravention as all true and correct disclosure were made by the Petitioner and therefore, no intention to evade payment of tax can be attributed to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the impugned orders were quashed and the appeal was allowed.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Compensation to borrower upheld as bank did not verify construction progress before loan disbursals to builder
• No timeline mentioned in PMLA to forward arrest order & material in possession to Adjudicating Authority
• Release of seized assets if mandatory on completion of 120 days? Question referred to Larger Bench
• EPFO Extends date of filing of new ECR for the wage month September to 31/10/2026
• Earlier acceptance is relevant evidence in evaluating subsequent allegation of fictitious investment