The Allahabad High Court has upheld the seizure of goods sent for job workers without delivery challan, e-way bill.
The bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal has observed that once there was neither any delivery challan as required under Rule 45 read with Rule 55 of the GST Rules nor any e-way bill was accompanying with in respect of the goods sent for job worker, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, Nippon Tubes Limited by the respondent department cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary in manner.
The petitioner/assessee is a company engaged in manufacturing of M.S. Pipes. He submits that in the normal course of business, the petitioner placed purchase order on 4.1.2019 to Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) through its branch office which were dispatched from Raurkela Steel Plant of SAIL through Railways on which SGST and CGST were charged and on receiving the information from branch office of SAIL regarding receipt of four HR Coils at Ghaziabad Railway Sliding, the petitioner took delivery of the same. Since out of four HR Coils, two were meant for job worker i.e. M/s Jagdamba Cutter, Loha Mandi, Ghaziabad, therefore, the petitioner prepared challan for two HR Coils to be delivered to the job worker and for remaining two HR Coils, generated e-way bill for movement of the goods from SAIL, Ghaziabad to the manufacturing unit of the petitioner.
The goods were loaded on Truck and the driver was instructed to first deliver two HR Coils to the
place of job worker and thereafter to deliver the remaining two HR Coils to the manufacturing unit of the petitioner.
On 17.1.2019, after delivering two HR Coils to the place of job worker, when the vehicle started movement in the way to the petitioner’s manufacturing unit, the same was intercepted and on verification of the goods as well as accompanying documents, the vehicle was detained and goods were seized and order dated 18.1.2019 was passed under Section 129 (3) of UPGST/CGST Act on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce any document in respect of movement of two HR Coils from the branch office of SAIL to the business premises of job worker. The petitioner challenged the said order in appeal, which has also been dismissed vide order without considering the material on record.
The assessee contended that tax invoice was prepared in which all four HR coils were specifically mentioned however, since two HR Coils were to be delivered to the place of job worker and remaining two HR coils were to be delivered at the manufacturing unit, therefore, e-way bill was generated for two HR coils, which was available at the time of interception but on the e-way bill merely two HR coils were mentioned, therefore, adverse inference has been drawn against the petitioner. He submits that instead of taking the goods in question up to the manufacturing unit and then again send to the place of job worker, the transporter was directed to unload the two HR coils directly at the place of job worker, therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn for such action of the petitioner.
The department supported the order and submitted that goods in question were not accompanied with proper/genuine documents at the time of interception, therefore, the proceedings are justified. The petitioner has neither generated any e- way bill for HR Coils to be delivered up to the place of job worker nor issued any challan for the same.
The court while dismissing the writ petition noted that in respect of the goods sent for job worker, no relevant document i.e. delivery challan was prepared as required under Rule 45 and 55 of GST Rules and further no e-way bill was produced at any stage. Therefore, in the absence of document, the goods in question cannot be said to be accompanied with specified documents.
Case Details
Case Title: Nippon Tubes Limited Versus State of UP and others
Case No.: WRIT Tax No. 6 of 2021
Date: 17.9.2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Nishant Mishra, Tanmay Sadh
Counsel For Respondent: CSC
Read More: Pre-deposit On Penalty Only In Appeal Notified w.e.f. 01.10.2025
