# M/s B M Computers v. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Lucknow & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 337
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-10
- **Case number:** Writ Tax No. 1559 of 2024
- **Bench:** Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-b-m-computers-v-commissioner-commercial-taxes-lucknow-ors-53126
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section
129(3) - Rule 138 - Writ of Certiorari
- Goods in Transit - E-Way Bill - Part
B Non-Compliance - Intention to
Evade Tax - Mandatory Procedural
Requirements
-
Post-April
2018
Transactions.

Held:
The petitioner, a registered dealer in
computer
hardware,
challenged
a
penalty order dated 06.03.2023 under
Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act,
2017, and an appellate order dated
30.05.2024, for goods intercepted on
06.03.2023 at Luharli Toll Plaza,
Greater Noida. The goods, transferred
from
Agra
to
Ghaziabad,
were
accompanied by tax invoices and e-way
bills, but Part B of e-way bill no.
411318901103 was not filled, and eway bill no. 411318916631 incorrectly
showed movement from Agra to Agra
instead of Agra to Noida. The Court
held that post the 14th Amendment to
the U.P. GST Rules, 2017 (effective
01.04.2018), a complete e-way bill,
including Part B, is mandatory under
Rule 138. Non-compliance raises a
rebuttable presumption of tax evasion,
which the petitioner failed to rebut, as
Part B was generated post-interception
and the e-way bill misstated the
destination.
Relying
on
*Akhilesh
Traders* and *Jhansi Enterprises*, the
Court upheld the penalty, finding an
intent to evade tax, and dismissed the
petitioner's reliance on pre-April 2018
cases as distinguishable. The writ
petition was dismissed, as no case for
interference was made out.

Writ petition dismissed.

Case Law Discussed:

## Text

4 All. M/s B M Computers Vs. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Lucknow & Ors.
337
officers, which position should not be
tolerated by the State.
----------

(2025) 4 ILRA 337
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Writ Tax No. 1559 of 2024

M/s B M Computers ...Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner, Commercial Taxes
Lucknow & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ms. Pooja Talwar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section
129(3) - Rule 138 - Writ of Certiorari
- Goods in Transit - E-Way Bill - Part
B Non-Compliance - Intention to
Evade Tax - Mandatory Procedural
Requirements
-
Post-April
2018
Transactions.

Held:
The petitioner, a registered dealer in
computer
hardware,
challenged
a
penalty order dated 06.03.2023 under
Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act,
2017, and an appellate order dated
30.05.2024, for goods intercepted on
06.03.2023 at Luharli Toll Plaza,
Greater Noida. The goods, transferred
from
Agra
to
Ghaziabad,
were
accompanied by tax invoices and e-way
bills, but Part B of e-way bill no.
411318901103 was not filled, and eway bill no. 411318916631 incorrectly
showed movement from Agra to Agra
instead of Agra to Noida. The Court
held that post the 14th Amendment to
the U.P. GST Rules, 2017 (effective
01.04.2018), a complete e-way bill,
including Part B, is mandatory under
Rule 138. Non-compliance raises a
rebuttable presumption of tax evasion,
which the petitioner failed to rebut, as
Part B was generated post-interception
and the e-way bill misstated the
destination.
Relying
on
*Akhilesh
Traders* and *Jhansi Enterprises*, the
Court upheld the penalty, finding an
intent to evade tax, and dismissed the
petitioner's reliance on pre-April 2018
cases as distinguishable. The writ
petition was dismissed, as no case for
interference was made out.

Writ petition dismissed.

Case Law Discussed:

1. *Akhilesh Traders Vs St. of U.P.*,
Writ Tax No. 1109 of 2019, (2024)
AHC 18765 - Non-compliance with eway bill requirements post-April 2018
raises a presumption of tax evasion,
rebuttable by the owner/transporter;
subsequent document production does
not absolve liability.

2. *Jhansi Enterprises Vs St. of U.P.*,
Writ Tax No. 1081 of 2019, (2024)
AHC
15432
-
Post-April
2018,
complete e-way bill is mandatory;
338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
subsequent furnishing of documents
does not negate tax evasion intent.

3. *M/s Varun Beverages Ltd. v. State
of U.P.*, [2023] UPTC (113) 331 -
Distinguished as pre-April 2018, when
e-way bill generation faced technical
issues.

4. *M/s Falguni Steels Vs St. of U.P.*,
[2024] UPTC 221 - Distinguished as
pre-April 2018.

5. *Indeutsch Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs St.
of U.P.*, [2024] UPTC (116) 579 -
Distinguished as pre-April 2018.

6. *M/s Exch. Therm Engineering Co.
Vs St. of U.P.*, [2024] UPTC (116)
362 - Distinguished as pre-April
2018.

7. *M/s Rawal Wasia Yarn Dying Pvt.
Ltd. Vs Commissioner Commercial
Tax*, [2024] NTN (84) 213 -
Distinguished as pre-April 2018.

Observation:

The
Court
observed
that
the
petitioner's failure to fill Part B of the
e-way
bill
and
the
incorrect
destination (Agra to Agra instead of
Agra to Noida) in e-way bill no.
411318916631 indicated an intent to
evade tax, as the incomplete e-way
bill delayed the validity period,
allowing undetected transport. The
generation of Part B post-interception
at 4:28 AM on 06.03.2023, after the
3:16 AM interception, further supported
this intent. The appellate authority's
order, though brief, was justified given
the clear violation of Rule 138 postApril 2018, when e-way bill generation
issues were resolved. The petitioner's
reliance on pre-April 2018 cases was
misplaced,
as
the
mandatory
requirement for a complete e-way bill
became
stringent
after
the
14th
Amendment. The Court emphasized
that such non-compliance undermines
the GST regime's deterrence against tax
evasion.

Result: Writ petition dismissed; penalty
order dated 06.03.2023 and appellate
order dated 30.05.2024 upheld.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan
Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra,
learned Standing Counsel for State.

2. Through this writ petition, a
challenge has been made to order dated
06.03.2023
passed
by
Assistant
Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad-5,
Sector-5, Unit-1, Noida, under Section
129(3) of the U.P. State Goods and Service
Tax Act, 2017 and Central Goods and
Service Tax Act, 2017 imposing penalty
and appellate order dated 30.05.2024
passed
by
Additional
Commissioner,
Grade-2 (Appeal)-3, State Tax, Noida,
confirming the order of penalty passed by
Assessing Authority.

3. The brief facts of the case are that
petitioner is a registered dealer under the
GST
regime
having
GSTN
No.
09AEWPA1632E1ZN. It is engaged in the
4 All. M/s B M Computers Vs. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Lucknow & Ors.
339
sale and purchase of computer and other
hardware material. The petitioner firm had
carried a stock transfer of goods from its
Agra Headquarter to Ghaziabad Branch
amounting
to
Rs.8,45,000/-
and
Rs.1,43,500/- inclusive of tax and issued
invoice No. ST/OUT/BMC/365, e-way bill
no.
4113
1890
1103
and
ST/OUT/BMC/366, e-way bill no. 4113
1891 6631, respectively for the said
transactions. The said transfer was taking
place by taking services of one M/s Shagun
Logistics Cargo Services. The vehicle
along with goods were intercepted at
Luharli Toll Plaza Dadri, Greater Noida at
about
3:16
AM
on
06.03.2023
by
respondent no. 2. A physical verification of
consignment of goods was carried out and a
detention order was passed on 06.03.2023
stating that Part B is not updated in the eway bill. On the same day, a show-cause
notice was issued demanding response
from the petitioner on the points raised
therein and proposed demand. Petitioner
appeared before the Assessing Authority
and filed its reply and penalty was imposed
under Section 129(3) of UPGST/CGST
Act, 2017. The petitioner deposited the
entire amount of penalty and got the
vehicle released. Aggrieved by the order of
penalty, petitioner firm preferred appeal
before the Appellate Authority which was
dismissed on 30.05.2024. Hence, the
present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that first appellate authority has
not applied its mind while rejecting the
appeal and a non-speaking order has been
passed. According to petitioner's counsel,
goods were duly covered with tax invoices
and only deficiency was that Part B of eway bill was not filled which was a human
error and to be filled by transporter.
Reliance has been placed upon the
decisions in case of M/s. Varun Beverages
Limited vs. State of U.P. and 2 others
reported in [2023 U.P.T.C. (113) 331],
M/s. Falguni Steels vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2024 UPTC 221, Indeutsch
Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. &
others reported in [2024 UPTC (Vol.
116)
579],
M/s.
Exch.
Therm
Engineering Company vs. State of U.P.
and others [2024 UPTC (Vol. 116) 362]
and M/s Rawal Wasia Yarn Dying Pvt.
Ltd. vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax
and another [2024 NTN (Vol. 84) 213].

5. Learned Standing Counsel while
opposing the writ petition submitted that
there was an intention to evade the tax. He
further submitted that when the goods were
intercepted only Part A of the invoice No.
ST/OUT/BMC/365, e-way bill no. 4113
1890 1103 was filled and Part B of the eway bill required for transportation was not
filled and it was generated on 06.03.2025 at
4:28 AM that is after about one hour when
the vehicle was intercepted. It is further
contended
that
invoice
no.
ST/OUT/BMC/366, e-way bill no. 4113
1891 6631 reflected that goods were being
transported from Agra to Agra while the
goods were brought from Agra to Noida for
which no document was available.

6.
It
is
further
contended that
petitioner firm deliberately did not fill Part
B of e-way bill, due to which the required
time limit for e-way bill did not start and
the goods reached Noida. In such a
situation, with the intention of evading tax,
goods were brought in many vehicles using
this document. He further submits that as
per Rule 138 of the Act of 2017, complete
e-way bill is mandatory.

7. It was lastly contended that the
judgment relied upon by petitioner relate to
340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the period where the detention of goods
was prior to April, 2018. According to him,
in instances of detention that occurs
subsequent to April, 2018, complete e-way
bill is mandatory and required to be carried
along with goods. Reliance has been placed
upon the decision of co-ordinate Bench in
case
of
M/s.
Jhansi
Enterprises,
Nandanpura, Jhansi vs. State of U.P. and
others, Writ Tax No. 1081 of 2019,
decided on
01.03.2024
and decision
rendered in case of M/s. Akhilesh Traders
vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ Tax
No. 1109 of 2019, decided on 20.02.2024.

8. I have heard respective counsel for
the parties and perused the material on
record.

9. The sole question for consideration
is whether carrying complete e-way bill is
mandatory for the movement of goods from
one place to another. The question is no
more res integra after the 14th Amendment
of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service
Tax Rules, 2017 which came into effect
from 01.04.2018. Post amendment in the
Rule, it has become obligatory that goods
should be accompanied with complete eway bill. The co-ordinate Bench in
Akhilesh Traders (supra) had held that in
case goods are not accompanied by e-way
bill, a presumption may be read that there is
an intention to evade tax. Such a
presumption of evasion of tax then
becomes rebuttable by the materials to be
provided by the owner/transporter of the
goods. Relevant paras 7 and 8 are extracted
hereasunder:-

"7. This Court in umpteen cases
where penalties were being imposed under
Section 129 of the Act though held that an
intention to evade tax should be present,
however, in the event the goods are not
accompanied by the invoice or the e-way
bill, a presumption may be raised that there
is an intention to evade tax. Such a
presumption of evasion of tax then becomes
rebuttable by the materials to be provided
by the owner/transporter of the goods.

8. In the present case, one comes
to an inexorable conclusion that the
petitioner has not been able to rebut the
presumption of evasion of taxes, as he has
not been able to explain the absence of
invoice and the E-Way Bill. Production of
these
documents
subsequent
to
the
interception cannot absolve the petitioner
from the liability of penalty as the very
purpose of imposing penalty is to act as a
deterrent to persons who intend to avoid
paying taxes owed to the Government. It is
clear that if the goods had not been
intercepted, the Government would have
been out of its pocket with respect to the
GST payable on the said goods."

10. In Jhansi Enterprises (supra),
the co-ordinate Bench following the
decision rendered in Akhilesh Traders
(supra) further held that mere furnishing of
documents
subsequent
to
interception
cannot be a valid ground to show that there
was no intention to evade tax. The Court
further held that reliance placed upon the
decision by petitioner therein was of
transaction prior to April, 2018 but after
April, 2018, those difficulties have been
resolved and there is no difficulty in
generating and downloading the e-way bill.
The Court held as under:-

"11. Mere furnishing of the
documents subsequent to the interception
can not be a valid ground to show that
there was no intention to evade tax. There
must be some reasonable grounds to justify
the non-production of documents at the
proper time.
4 All. M/s B M Computers Vs. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Lucknow & Ors.
341

12. Furthermore, the judgments
upon which the petitioner is relying are
prior to April 2018, when there were
actually
some
difficulties
with
the
generation of e-way bill. But after April,
2018 those difficulties have been resolved
and now there is no difficulty in generating
and downloading the e-way bill.

13. The argument raised by the
counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner that the vehicle was parked at the
godown for unloading is not supported by
the facts. The interception of the vehicle
was in a place away from the godown and
this entire argument is obviously an
afterthought. Accordingly, the application
of Section 129(3) of the Act by the
authorities is valid and just in law.

14. In light of the above, I am of
the view that the petitioner herein has not
complied with the provisions of law, hence
the
steps
taken
by
the
respondent
authorities are proper and in accordance
with the law and require no interference by
this court. "

11. In the instant case, it is an
admitted
case
that
the
goods
were
intercepted by respondent no. 2 on
06.03.2023 at 3:16 a.m., while only Part A
of the invoice No. ST/OUT/BMC/365, eway bill no. 4113 1890 1103 was filled and
Part B of the e-way bill required for
transportation was not filled and it was
generated on 06.03.2025 at 4:28 AM that is
after about one hour when the vehicle was
intercepted.
Further,
invoice
no.
ST/OUT/BMC/366, e-way bill no. 4113
1891 6631 reflected that goods were being
transported from Agra to Agra while the
goods were brought from Agra to Noida for
which no document was available

12. Rule 138 of the Act of 2017
provides that complete e-way bill is
mandatory
for
commencement
of
movement of goods, which is extracted as
under:-

"Rule-138. Information to be
furnished prior to commencement of
movement of goods and generation of eway bill.-

(1)Every registered person who
causes movement of goods of consignment
value exceeding fifty thousand rupees-

(i) in relation to a supply; or

(ii) for reasons other than supply;
or

 (iii) due to inward supply from
an unregistered person, shall, before
commencement of such movement, furnish
information relating to the said goods in
Part
A
of
FORM
GST
EWB-01,
electronically, on the common portal.

(2)
Where
the
goods
are
transported by the registered person as a
consignor or the recipient of supply as the
consignee, whether in his own conveyance
or a hired one or by railways or by air or
by vessel, the said person or the recipient
may generate the e- way bill in FORM GST
EWB-01 electronically on the common
portal after furnishing information in Part
B of FORM GST EWB-01"

13.
Moreover,
conduct
of
the
petitioner clearly reveals that an intention
to evade the tax is there as not only the
goods in transit were not accompanied by
Part B of e-way bill but also goods were
being transported from Agra to Noida
while the e-way bill was issued by the
petitioner firm from Agra to Agra.

14.
Reliance
placed
upon
the
judgments is distinguishable in the facts of
the present case as in those cases, the
transaction was prior to April, 2018 where
the benefit was given to those assesses. It is
342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mandatory on the part of the seller to
download the complete e-way bill once the
goods are put in transit. Only downloading
Part A of e-way bill and non filling of Part
B would not absolve the liability under the
Act.

15. No case for interference is made
out.

16. The writ petition fails and is
hereby dismissed.
----------

(2025) 4 ILRA 342
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARRAF, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ Tax No. 1716 of 2025

M/s Arena Superstructures Private
Limited ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ami Tandon, Rahul Agarwal, Saumya
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Dhananjay Awasthi

Civil Law - Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code, 2016 - Section 31 - Central Goods
and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 74(9)
- Writ of Certiorari - Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process - Approved Resolution Plan -
Extinguishment of Pre-CIRP Claims - Prohibition
on Post-Approval Demands.
Held:

The petitioner, under Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process (CIRP) since 10.10.2020,
challenged an assessment order and demand
notice dated 04.02.2025 under Section 74(9)
of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017, for the
financial year 2017-18, issued after the NCLT
approved its Resolution Plan on 19.07.2022.
The GST Department, notified during CIRP
and having filed claims before the Resolution
Professional, raised new claims post-approval.
The Court held that Section 31 of the IBC,
2016, extinguishes all pre-CIRP statutory dues
not included in the approved Resolution Plan
upon NCLT approval, as established by
Supreme Court precedents. The impugned
order and notice, by imposing new liabilities,
violated the IBC's clean slate principle for
resolution
applicants.
Citing
*Ghanshyam
Mishra* and *Vaibhav Goyal*, the Court
quashed the assessment order and demand
notice as legally unsustainable, protecting the
resolution
process
from
post-approval
disruptions.

Writ petition allowed; assessment order
and demand notice dated 04.02.2025
quashed.

Case Law Discussed:

1. *Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons (P) Ltd. Vs
Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.*,
[2021] 126 Taxmann.com 132 (SC) / 166 SCL
237 - Pre-CIRP dues not included in the
Resolution Plan are extinguished upon NCLT
approval under Section 31 of IBC.

2. *N.S. Papers Ltd. Vs U.O.I.*, Writ Tax No.
408 of 2021, (2024) AHC 78943 - PostResolution
Plan
tax
claims
are
invalid;
assessment orders issued after CIRP approval