The bench of Raipur Bench of GST Appellate Tribunal has held that two e-way bills for the same invoice do not, by themselves, settle whether a second taxable supply occurred. It has sent the dispute back for a fresh decision after finding that the taxpayer was denied a requested personal hearing and that the original demand order lacked adequate reasons.
The Bench of Pradeep Kumar Vyas (Judicial Member) and Chandra Bhushan Singh (Technical Member) has set aside a ₹3,13,208 demand arising from two e-way bills generated for the same invoice and vehicle. The relief is procedural: the Tribunal has not ruled that the second e-way bill was an error or that no further tax is payable. It has directed the original adjudicating authority to examine the evidence afresh.
Buy Now: E-Magazine: 1000+ Landmark GST Judgments (2017–2026)
During scrutiny for financial year 2018–19, the State Tax Department found that two e-way bills had been generated against Invoice GST-125 on April 12, 2018. Both showed the same taxable value of ₹7,85,747, IGST of ₹1,41,434.50 and vehicle number CG04JA8774. The first was generated at 12:51 pm and the second at 2:14 pm. Both remained valid and uncancelled.
The department treated the duplicate generation as indicating an additional transaction on which tax had not been paid. Following a show-cause notice dated December 28, 2023, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. The first appellate authority later granted relief for a separate invoice, GST-1399, but retained the demand concerning GST-125.
The amount surviving before GSTAT comprised ₹1,41,434 in IGST, ₹1,57,631 in interest and ₹14,143 in penalty, totalling ₹3,13,208.
The assessee maintained that the goods were supplied only once, the invoice was reported only once in GSTR-1 and the tax was paid through GSTR-3B. It attributed the second e-way bill to a clerical mistake, power interruption or technical glitch.
The Tribunal found that this was not a precise account of what had happened. No contemporaneous portal error message, helpdesk complaint, screenshot, electricity record or other independent material was produced to establish the cause of duplication. The taxpayer also had not explained when it discovered the second e-way bill or why it was not cancelled.
A further discrepancy concerned the invoice number: an earlier explanation referred to GST-128, while the surviving demand concerned GST-125. The taxpayer called this a typographical error, but did not produce the primary invoices and corresponding GSTR-1 material sought at the final hearing to resolve it.
The Tribunal said these gaps prevented it from accepting the taxpayer’s explanation merely on assertion. They did not, however, dispense with the department’s obligation to follow the statutory hearing process and give reasons for its decision.
In its reply to the show-cause notice, the taxpayer had expressly selected “Yes” when asked whether it wanted a personal hearing. The Tribunal found no record showing that the original adjudicating authority fixed or conducted a hearing after receiving that reply and before passing the adverse order.
Under Section 75(4) of the GST law, an opportunity of hearing must be granted when the person concerned requests one or when an adverse decision is contemplated. Both circumstances applied here, the Tribunal held. Hearings subsequently given during the appeals did not automatically cure the failure at the original adjudication stage.
The Tribunal also found that the original order did not meet Section 75(6), which requires relevant facts and the basis of the decision to be stated. Merely describing the taxpayer’s reply as unsatisfactory did not explain why its claim of a single supply was rejected or how an additional taxable transaction had been established.
Rule 138(9) provides for cancellation of an e-way bill within the prescribed period where goods are not transported, or are not transported according to the details entered. The first appellate authority had relied substantially on the fact that the second bill was never cancelled.
GSTAT held that non-cancellation is a relevant circumstance when a taxpayer says one of two e-way bills was unintended. But it cannot, in isolation, establish a second taxable movement or supply. The adjudicating authority must weigh it alongside the invoices, returns, books, stock and transport records, portal data and the taxpayer’s explanation.
The Tribunal therefore declined both to cancel the demand outright on the taxpayer’s unsupported account and to uphold it finally on the incomplete record.
The case has been remanded to the original adjudicating authority from the stage after receipt of the taxpayer’s January 27, 2024 reply. No fresh show-cause notice is to be issued. The fresh decision must remain confined to the existing notice and the transaction concerning Invoice GST-125.
The taxpayer must be given an opportunity to explain specifically how the second e-way bill was generated and to produce supporting material, including the relevant invoices, GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B returns, books, stock records and transport documents. The authority must then provide a meaningful personal hearing and pass a reasoned order.
If the taxpayer fails to provide relevant records without sufficient cause, the authority may decide on the available material and draw any adverse inference permitted by law. The earlier relief concerning Invoice GST-1399 remains undisturbed.
GSTAT asked for the fresh adjudication to be completed expeditiously, preferably within three months of communication of its order, subject to the applicable statutory period. Any statutory pre-deposit will be dealt with according to the outcome; the Tribunal issued no separate refund direction at this stage.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
