Merely not mentioning transporter’s name in e-way bill not intention to evade payment of tax

When goods was accompanied with requisite documents merely not mentioning name of transporter in e-way bill not intention to evade payment of tax. 

In a recent judgment, Allahabad High Court has quashed GST order alleging intention to evade payment of tax where goods was accompanied with tax invoice, eway bill, bilty, etc., but only on the e-way bill, the name of the transporter was not mentioned.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4675 (2025) (07) abcaus.in HC

In the instant case, the assessee had filed writ petition against the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of GST and the impugned appellate order passed by the Additional Commissioner.

It was submitted by the petitioner that the goods in question were in transit from Delhi to Delhi accompanying with requisite documents, i.e., tax invoice, eway bill, bilty, etc., but only on the e-way bill, the name of the transporter was not mentioned. On the said ground, the goods were detained and thereafter, seized and order under section 129(3) of the GST Act was passed.

It was further submitted that the statement of the truck driver was recorded, who stated that the goods were coming from Delhi and were going to Ghaziabad. On the said premise, the goods were seized, to which the petitioner filed detailed objection.

Not being satisfied with the same, the impugned order was passed, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal specifically taking the ground that the goods were moving from Delhi to Delhi and the driver of the vehicle diverted his vehicle to transport company’s godwon so that fully loaded vehicle be transported Delhi. He further submits that it is a matter of common knowledge that between Delhi and Ghaziabad, there is no man’s land, where, various transport godwons are situated.

It was further submitted that wrong finding had been recorded that the place of destination was wrongly shown; whereas, the tax invoice and the GR specifically mention the place of destination at Delhi and the same were being mentioned in the e-way bill.

It was further submitted that merely on a technical ground of breach for not mentioning the name of the transporter, the same will not amount to any intention to evade payment of tax.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that the goods were transported from Delhi to Delhi, against which tax invoice, e-way bill, etc. were issued. On perusal of the e-way bill it was clear that the transporter’s name was not mentioned, but the truck number and all other details were clearly mentioned.

The Hon’ble High Court noted that an inference has been drawn on the statement of the truck driver that the goods were coming from Delhi meant for Ghaziabad. The record further showed that in the grounds of appeal, specific averment had been made that the goods gone for full truck load to its godwon, which had not been denied at any stage.

The Hon’ble High Court stated that in absence of any finding with regard to intention to evade payment of tax, the penalty proceedings under section 129 of the GST Act cannot be attracted and therefore, the same cannot be justified as held by the Court and also the judgment of the Supreme Court.

In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, the impugned orders was considered as not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly the same were quashed by the Hon’ble High Court. 

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Empanelment of ICAI Exam observer for January 2027 Examinations. Last date: 20.11.2026
• No arrest under GST- Major decision of 57th Meeting of GST Council held on 8th October 2026
• Later SC ruling cannot render an act done in compliance of a court order a statutory default
• Interest payment on mobilisation advance to NHAI not liable to TDS u/s 194A
• Typographical error in turnover accepted during assessment not a mistake apparent from record