Goods in question were loaded in two trucks as the machine could not be accommodated in one truck, and in the invoice as well as in the e-way bill, multi-vehicle transport was specifically mentioned; therefore, no intention to evade tax could be attributed to the assessee. {Falcon Autotech (P.) Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner [2026] 182 taxmann.com 175 (Allahabad)}
Facts
- The assessee (Falcon Autotech Pvt. Ltd.) transported goods that could not fit in a single truck, so they were loaded into two trucks.
- In both the tax invoice and the e-way bill, the movement of goods by multiple vehicles was specifically mentioned.
- At the point of interception, GST officials raised proceedings under Section 129 (detention/seizure/penalty) alleging potential tax evasion.
Issue
Whether the movement of goods by two separate vehicles (as declared in the invoice and e-way bill) where multi-vehicle dispatch was clearly disclosed could be taken as evidence of intention to evade tax, justifying seizure/penalty under Section 129?
Held
The Allahabad High Court held that:
- Since the multi-vehicle dispatch was clearly and transparently disclosed in the invoice and the e-way bill, there was no concealment or misrepresentation of facts.
- All statutory documents were in order, and there was no material to show any intention to evade tax.
- In the absence of mens rea (intention to evade tax), penalty/seizure under Section 129 was not justified.
