Vishalfab (India) Pvt. Ltd Unit 2 v State Of Madhya Pradesh: MP HC on Part B

This case study covers a writ petition decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in which M/S Vishalfab (India) Pvt. Ltd Unit 2 challenged IGST and an equal penalty imposed under Section 129 of the GST Act. The goods were intercepted in transit because Part B of the E-Way bill, which carries the vehicle number, had not been generated. The case shows how the High Court treated the missing Part B under Section 129, and why the petitioner's reliance on earlier "no intention to evade" and "bona fide mistake" rulings did not succeed.

This page is a research summary of one specific Indian tax judgment, NOT legal advice. Always verify against the full judgment and consult a professional for case-specific guidance.

---

The case at a glance

• Parties: M/S Vishalfab (India) Pvt. Ltd Unit 2 vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
• Bench: Madhya Pradesh High Court
• Date: 9 July 2025
• Court level: High Court
• Sections engaged: 129
• Outcome: Revenue succeeded

---

Facts of the case

The petitioner manufactures electrical and electronic components, sub-assemblies, motor vehicle parts and accessories, and copper strips at a plant in the Industrial Area, Sanwer Road, Indore. It imported machinery from China and filed a bill of entry at JNCH, Nhava Sheva, dated 02.08.2018. It paid IGST of Rs. 1,48,524/- by challan of the same date to clear the goods. It engaged Khandelwal Roadlines Service to carry the goods from the port to its Indore premises, and generated an E-Way bill dated 09.08.2018.

On 11.08.2018, truck No. MP09-GG-6080 was intercepted by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Anti Evasion Bureau. According to the order, the documents were checked and no irregularity was found. The objection was that Part B of the E-Way bill had not been filed, so the vehicle number did not appear in it. The goods were seized under Section 129 of the GST Act. A notice under the same section proposed IGST at 18% on the value of the seized goods plus an equal penalty, a total of Rs. 2,99,208/-. The petitioner furnished a bank guarantee of Rs. 2,99,208/- dated 17.08.2018 to secure release of the vehicle and goods.

The Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, passed an order dated 18.08.2018. It affirmed tax of Rs. 1,49,604/- and imposed a penalty of the same amount, on the ground that an E-Way bill without the vehicle number could not be a valid E-Way bill. The petitioner appealed after pre-depositing Rs. 14,961/-. The appellate authority and Joint Commissioner, State Tax Headquarters, Indore, dismissed Appeal No. 142/2018 by order dated 06.06.2022. The petitioner then filed Writ Petition No. 27287 of 2022. It stated that it approached the High Court by writ because the Tribunal had not been constituted.

---

Issues raised

• Whether failure to generate Part B of the E-Way bill, which carries the vehicle number, makes the E-Way bill invalid and attracts Section 129.
• Whether the duty to fill Part B lay with the transporter, so that penalising the petitioner was wrong when Part A disclosed the import and transport particulars and the GST had been paid in advance.
• Whether the absence of Part B could be treated as a minor or technical lapse, given the petitioner's reliance on decisions where no intention to evade tax or a bona fide mistake was found.

---

What the court held

The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the petition and left undisturbed the order confirming IGST and penalty. The court found that the petitioner failed to generate Part B of the E-Way bill, which is a mandatory requirement.

The State's submissions are recorded in the order. They were that an E-Way bill has two parts. Part A holds the details of the goods and the consignor and consignee. Part B holds the vehicle details, particularly the vehicle number. The State argued that without these details the E-Way bill is incomplete and invalid. It also relied on a Division Bench decision of the same High Court in M/s Gati Kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Commercial Tax of M.P., W.P. No. 12399 of 2018, dated 05.07.2018. The State described that decision as holding that Part B must be updated in the E-Way bill entry, that an E-Way bill without Part B is not genuine or valid, and that this is not a minor mistake or a technical error.

The order then reproduces the text of Section 129 of the Madhya Pradesh GST Act, 2017. That text covers detention and seizure of goods and conveyances transported in contravention of the Act or Rules, and release on payment of tax and penalty or on furnishing security. It also requires an order of detention or seizure to be served on the person transporting the goods, a notice specifying the tax and penalty payable, an opportunity of being heard, and deemed conclusion of proceedings on payment. The operative outcome is that the High Court sustained the State's position.

---

Strategy observations

1. The petitioner argued that Part A disclosed all particulars of the import and transportation, and that filling Part B was the transporter's duty. It contended that penalising the petitioner was therefore wrong.
2. The petitioner relied on three authorities. The first was Assistant Commissioner (ST) vs. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd., 2022 (57) GSTL 97 (SC), where demand and penalty were set aside after the E-Way bill expired a day earlier and there was no intention to evade tax. The second was Technosteel Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (61) GSTL 576 (MP), involving a bona fide mistake in the address in the E-Way bill. The third was Robbins Tunnelling & Trenchless Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of M.P., 2021 (48) GSTL 337 (MP), where there was no major lapse in the E-Way bill.
3. The petitioner also pointed to cases where an E-Way bill not found with the transporter was later produced before the adjudicating authority's order, and the appellate authority set aside the penalty.
4. The State answered by treating Part B as a mandatory condition and relying on the Gati Kintetsu Division Bench ruling, which it said held the omission to be neither minor nor technical. The High Court's dismissal followed the mandatory-requirement reasoning.
5. Procedurally, the petitioner furnished a bank guarantee for release of the vehicle and goods, and pre-deposited Rs. 14,961/- for the first appeal. It then went to the High Court in writ jurisdiction because the Tribunal had not been constituted.

---

Why this case matters

The decision illustrates how the Madhya Pradesh High Court treated a Part B omission under Section 129 in a case where the taxpayer had paid IGST at import and the documents otherwise raised no irregularity. The court's reasoning, as recorded, rests on Part B being a mandatory component of a valid E-Way bill. It did not turn on whether tax was in fact evaded.

The order sits alongside the Gati Kintetsu Division Bench ruling cited by the State, which treated a missing Part B as a substantive defect. For researchers tracking Section 129 disputes, it shows the tension between "no intention to evade" and "bona fide mistake" authorities, such as those relied on by the petitioner, and a strict-compliance reading of E-Way bill requirements.

---

Source

This case is drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals. Original document: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/190883069/