HomeGSTHimachal Pradesh High Court Quashes GST Penalty for Missing...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes GST Penalty for Missing E-Way Bill, Says No Intent to Evade Tax Proven

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed the penalty imposed on M/s Kunal Aluminum Company for transporting goods without an e-way bill, ruling that there was no intent to evade tax.

The Bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja, set aside the orders passed by the GST authorities and the Appellate Authority. The Court directed the release of the bank guarantee furnished under protest by the company, along with applicable interest, within four weeks.

The controversy arose when a truck carrying aluminum scrap was intercepted in Solan district on November 5, 2020. The vehicle was found without an e-way bill, prompting authorities to detain the goods under Section 129 of the CGST Act. Despite the company furnishing documents showing payment of customs duty and IGST amounting to ₹4,09,144, the department imposed a tax and penalty of ₹3,56,183 each.

Though the company generated the e-way bill post-detention and explained it as a technical lapse, the appeal filed before the Appellate Authority was dismissed on August 22, 2024.

The Court emphasized that mere technical lapses such as non-generation of an e-way bill, without proof of fraudulent intent, do not warrant imposition of penalties under the GST law. It cited several precedents, including CST v. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. v. Union of India, to reinforce the requirement of mens rea (guilty intent) in such matters.

“The essence of any penal imposition is intrinsically linked to the presence of mens rea, a facet conspicuously absent in the present case,” the bench held. It also criticized the authorities for adopting a disproportionate punitive approach despite all taxes being paid and valid invoices being present.

Case Details

Case Title: M/s Kunal Aluminum Company Versus State of Himachal Pradesh

Case No.: CMPMO No. 40/2025

Date:  26/06/2025

Counsel For  Petitioner: Ajay Vaidya, Advocate

Counsel For Respondent: Anup Rattan, A.G.

Read More: Jharkhand High Court Denies Bail to Former Minister Alamgir Alam in Rs. 56-Crore PMLA Case

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 5+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies like LiveLaw & Taxscan.