Failure to fill Part-B of E-way Bill would attract Penalty: Madhya Pradesh HC [Read Judgment]

A division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, while upholding a penalty order passed by the GST department, held that filing Part-B of the E-Way Bill is a mandatory requirement and the failure to do the same would attract penalty under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Petitioner is a leading transportation company, has failed to give the details in Part-B of the e-way bill i.e., the details of conveyance in the e-way bill and the common portal in Part-B of Form GST EWB-01. The authorities imposed penalty on the petitioner for the violation of the provisions of the Central goods and Services Tax Act.

The petitioners submitted that due to technical error, Part-B of the e-way bill cannot be updated. However, the authorities denied the contention because the portal of the goods or service tax provides for an option of grievance in case the petitioner was having any problem in updating the Part-B of the e-way bill. No such grievance has been raised by the petitioner and he has never given any written grievance.

Before the High Court, the petitioners relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of VSL Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd. wherein a similar issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

The bench comprising Justices P. K. Jaiswal and S. K. Awasthi, refused to follow the decision and held that “in that case it was held that the distance was within 50 kilo meteres and, therefore, the petitioner therein was not under an obligation to fill the Part-B of the e-way bill and the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has rightly quashed the order.”

Dismissing the writ petition, “In the present case, the distance was more than 1200-1300 kilometers and it is mandatory for the petitioner to file the Part-B of the e-way bill giving all the details including the vehicle number before the goods are loaded in the vehicle. Thus, he admittedly violated the provisions of the Rules and Act of 2017 and, learned Authority rightly imposed the penalty and directed the petitioner to pay the same. The order is not in violation of any of the provisions of the Rules and Act of 2017.”