# M/S Zhuhoor Infratech Pvt. Ltd v. Addl. Commissioner Grade 2 & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 2 ILRA 360
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-02-14
- **Case number:** Writ Tax No. 830 of 2024
- **Bench:** Piyush Agrawal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-zhuhoor-infratech-pvt-ltd-v-addl-commissioner-grade-2-anr-53135
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Tax Law - Interception and seizure of
goods - e-tax Invoice and e-way Bill -
Place of shipping address was differently
mentioned - No defect in respect of
quality and quantity of goods was found -
Effect - Held, if the place of shipment is
wrongly filled up, then it is merely a
technical error - E-way bill has not been
cancelled within its validity, therefore, no
adverse view can be taken against the
petitioner - Seizure or levy of penalty
cannot be made. (Para 10, 12 and 14)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

M/s Sun Flag Iron & Steel Company Limited Vs
St. of UP & ors.; 2023:AHC:215906

## Text

360 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
complete the said project, the Authority
shall make alternate arrangements to
ensure timely completion of the project."

151. These guidelines have been laid
down bearing in mind the completion of the
project and also to secure the interest of all
the stakeholders.

S. DIRECTIONS

152. In view of the aforementioned facts
and circumstances, this Court issues the
following directions:-

a. The parties hereto are directed to
take
steps
in
accordance
with
the
recommendations made in para 150 of this
judgment in the interest of expeditious
completion of the subject project; and

b.
The
Central
Bureau
of
Investigation (CBI) is hereby directed to
lodge a complaint against all the conniving
officials of the Noida Authority and the
allottees/ builders involved in allotment,
development, sanction of Sports City Project
and any other person who may be involved in
the present scam.

c. However, considering the overall
conduct of the parties, we refuse to exercise
our discretionary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India to accord any
relief prayed for in the instant writ petition.

d.
With
the
aforementioned
directions, this petition stands disposed of.

e. Parties to bear their own costs.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 360
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.02.2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Writ Tax No. 830 of 2024

M/S Zhuhoor Infratech Pvt. Ltd.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Addl. Commissioner Grade 2 & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Nitin Kumar Kesarwani

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Tax Law - Interception and seizure of
goods - e-tax Invoice and e-way Bill -
Place of shipping address was differently
mentioned - No defect in respect of
quality and quantity of goods was found -
Effect - Held, if the place of shipment is
wrongly filled up, then it is merely a
technical error - E-way bill has not been
cancelled within its validity, therefore, no
adverse view can be taken against the
petitioner - Seizure or levy of penalty
cannot be made. (Para 10, 12 and 14)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

M/s Sun Flag Iron & Steel Company Limited Vs
St. of UP & ors.; 2023:AHC:215906

(Delivered by Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J.)

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today,
is taken on record.

2. Heard Mr. Nitin Kumar Kesarwani
for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Shanker
Pandey, learned ACSC for the State-
respondents.

3. By means of present petition, the
petitioner is assailing the order dated
23.1.2024
passed
by
Additional
2 All. M/S Zhuhoor Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissionr Grade 2 & Anr.
361
Commissioner, Grade -02 (Appeal ) -V,
State Tax Kanpur, respondent no. 1 and the
order dated 20.12.2022 passed by Assistant
Commissioner, Sector 2 (Mobile Squad-4),
Kanpur, respondent no. 2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is a registered
dealer
having
GSTIN
No.
19AACZ8741R1ZA and in the normal
course of business, the petitioner has
received
an
order
from
Krishna
Constellation Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi for the
supply of 16 mm TMT Bar. In pursuance of
the said order, the petitioner approached
one of the manufacturer namely Rungta
Mines Limited, Jharkhand and placed the
said order with specific direction that bill is
to be issued in favour of the petitioner but
delivery of shipment was made at New
Delhi party. Thereafter the e-tax invoice as
well as e-way bill were generated.

5. He submits that while generating,
the e-tax invoice, the e-way bill was autopopulated, in other words, the contents of
e-tax invoice was automatically filled by
the system created by the GST portal in the
e-way bill. He submits that the goods in
question were accompanying with tax
invoice, e-way bill and consignment note,
however, during in onward journey from
Jharkhand to New Delhi, same were
intercepted by the respondent authority on
the ground that in the e-way bill at the
place of shipping address, the address of
West Bengal is mentioned, (address of the
petitioner) however in the tax invoice
shipping address of New Delhi was
mentioned,
therefore,
the
present
proceedings were initiated against the
petitioner and penalty order was passed. He
submits that e-way bill is electronically
generated by the GST portal and said fact is
specifically mentioned in paragraph no. 5
and 6 of the writ petition, which has not
been denied by the respondents. He further
submits that there is neither any difference
or variation in the goods in question as
mentioned in the tax invoice nor in the
quantity or quality of the same is otherwise
but merely on the ground of technical
defect as mentioned above, the proceedings
have been initiated against the petitioner,
which are not justified.

6. He further submits that the purpose
of e-way bill is only that the department
should come to know about the movement
of any goods from one place to another
place so that transaction in question may
not escape levy of tax, if any, at the time of
passing of the original assessment order.
He prays for allowing the present writ
petition.

7. Per contra, learned ACSC supports
the impugned orders and submits that
proceedings have rightly been initiated.

8. After hearing learned counsel for
the parties, the Court has perused the
records.

9. It is not in dispute that the goods in
question was intercepted, detained and
seized during its onward journey from
Jharkhand to New Delhi on the technical
ground that in place of shipping address,
the address of West Bengal was mentioned
but in the e- tax invoice, the same is
mentioned as New Delhi. However no
other discrepancy whatsoever was pointed
out in respect of quantity or quality of the
goods as mentioned in the e-tax invoice. It
is specifically mentioned in the writ
petition that at the time of generating the etax invoice, the system has auto-populated
the e-way bill after taking details from the
e- tax invoice. This fact has specifically
362 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been mentioned in paragraph nos. 4 and 5,
which has not been denied in the counter
affidavit filed by the State in paragraph no.
9. Once the auto populated details was
fetched by the system from e-tax invoice
created by the GST portal in the e-way bill,
no adverse inference can be drawn against
the petitioner.

10. Further, if the place of shipment is
wrongly filled up, then it is merely a
technical error provided if no other defect
is found in the e-tax-invoice as well as eway bill in respect of quality or quantity of
the goods at the time of physical
verification, therefore, no adverse view be
drawn against the petitioner.

11. The Court is of the opinion that eway bill is the document which is generated
and accompanying the goods in transit, so
that department may come to know about
the movement of goods from one place to
another place. So that at the time of passing
final assessment, the particular transaction
may not escape from levy of tax as per the
prevalent provisions, under the GST Act.

12. Further, the e-way bill can be
cancelled within its validity as provided
under the Act. The case in hand, the e-way
bill
was
automatically
generated
on
14.12.2022, which was valid up to
16.12.2022. In the present case, the e-way
bill has not been cancelled within its
validity, therefore, no adverse view can be
taken against the petitioner that if the goods
were
not
intercepted,
transaction
in
question could have escape to assessment.

13. This Court in the case of M/s Sun
Flag Iron and Steel Company Limited
Vs. State of UP and others; Neutral
Citation No. 2023:AHC:215906 has held
that the purpose of e-way bill is that the
department
should
know
the
actual
movement of the goods and once the e-way
bill is not cancelled within the prescribed
period, the genuineness of the transaction
cannot be questioned.

Relevant
paragraph
of
the
said
judgement is quoted hereunder:

11. Under the G.S.T. regime, all
the details are available on the G.S.T.
portal and it is admitted that e-tax invoice
was raised and e-way bill was generated
and the same was not cancelled within 24
hours as provided under the Act. Once the
said fact is not disputed and the petitioner
has not exercised its right either to
withdraw the tax invoice or e-way bill in
question, it was well within the knowledge
of the department that movement of the
goods in question has been undertaken by
the petitioner. Merely on the technical
ground that e-way bill accompanying with
the goods in question was expired on
1.6.2023 whereas the vehicle had been
intercepted in the intervening night of
2/3.6.2023.

12. The purpose of e-way bill is
that the department should know the
movement of goods. Once the e-way bill
has been generated and same has not been
cancelled by the petitioner within the time
prescribed under the Act, the movement of
goods as well as genuineness of transaction
in question cannot be disputed. .......

14. Thus, merely on technical ground
that in the e-way bill accompanying with
the goods in question, the place of
shipment has wrongly been mentioned, the
seizure or levy of penalty cannot be made.

15. In view of aforesaid fact and
circumstances of the case, the proceedings
2 All. M/S Rajat Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
363
initiated against the petitioner is not
justified in the eyes of law.

16. In the results, the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order dated 23.1.2024 passed by Additional
Commissioner, Grade -02 (Appeal ) -V,
State Tax Kanpur, respondent no. 1 and
order dated 20.12.2022 passed by Assistant
Commissioner, Sector 2 (Mobile Squad-4),
Kanpur, respondent no. 2, are hereby
quashed.

17. Any amount deposited by the
petitioner in the present proceedings shall
be refunded to him, in accordance with law,
expeditiously, preferably within a period of
two months from the date of producing a
certified copy of this order.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 363
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

Writ Tax No. 2300 of 2024

M/S Rajat Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ashish Srivastava, Atul Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Abrar Ahmad, Dhananjay Awasthi,
Parv Agarwal, R.V. Pandey

Civil law - The Uttar Pradesh Goods and
Service
Tax
Act,
2017-Section
83provisional attachment was made of the bank
account of the petitioner- objections of the
petitioner were dealt with by the respondent
authorities and the provisional attachment was
justified under Section 83 of the Act for a period
of one year-show cause notice has already been
adjudicated upon and order was passed u/s 74
of the Act- statutory alternative remedy to file
an appeal u/s 83 of the Act.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

M/s Radha Krishan Industries Vs St. of H.P.
reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 2114

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
&
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sitaram Yadav, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner; Sri Abrar Ahmad, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
no.1; Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
nos.2, 3 and 5 and Sri R.V. Pandey, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
no.4.

2. This is a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India wherein the
writ petitioner is aggrieved by orders dated
July 8, 2024 and October 30, 2024 passed
by the respondent authorities.

3. The first order dated July 8, 2024 is
an order whereby provisional attachment
was made of the bank account of the
petitioner. Subsequent to passing of this
provisional attachment order under Section
83 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service
Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act') the petitioner approached the
High Court and the coordinate Bench of
this Court vide order dated October 15,
2024 had directed the authorities to
consider the objections of the petitioner,