The Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) at Agra has upheld a penalty of ₹3,50,382 after finding that goods were being transported with an expired e-way bill that recorded a different vehicle number. 

The bench of Ajeet Singh (Judicial Member) and Vivek Kumar (Technical Member) observed that the taxpayer had failed to explain the delay in transit and the vehicle change with credible evidence.

BUY NOW: E-Way Bill Judgements From 2020–2026 [Includes Orders of GSTAT]

A mobile squad intercepted a vehicle carrying electrical equipment near Agra on August 3, 2022. The goods had been dispatched from Alwar, Rajasthan to  Agra. The invoice valued the consignment at ₹11,48,469.

The driver produced an invoice and an e-way bill. According to the Tribunal’s order, however, the e-way bill had expired by the date of interception. It also listed a vehicle different from the one carrying the goods. The officer issued a show-cause notice and subsequently imposed a penalty. 

The appellant paid the amount to obtain release of the goods, then challenged the penalty in appeal.

The first appellate authority rejected the challenge. The appellant then approached the GSTAT under Section 112(1) of the CGST and UPGST Acts.

The appellant argued that the consignment was supported by an invoice, transport document and e-way bill. It said the transporter had failed to update the vehicle details in Part B of the e-way bill after a change of vehicle due to oversight.

The taxpayer also described the expiry of the bill and the failure to update Part B as procedural lapses. It argued that the transaction had no adverse tax or revenue implications, that the department had not established an intention to evade tax, and that the first appellate authority had passed a non-speaking order.

The department supported the penalty and the findings of the two lower authorities.

The Tribunal found that the taxpayer’s explanation did not account for the circumstances of the journey. The e-way bill showed the distance between Alwar and Agra as 167 kilometres and was valid until August 1, 2022. Yet the goods were still in transit when intercepted on August 3.

The taxpayer referred to transshipment through Gurugram. The bench questioned why the goods had been taken there when, according to its findings, Gurugram did not fall on the stated route and was around 250 kilometres from Agra.

The bench also noted that the taxpayer had not replied to the show-cause notice within the stipulated time or submitted documents at that stage to substantiate its explanation for the expired e-way bill.

The Tribunal referred to Section 68 of the CGST Act and Rule 138 governing documents for goods in transit and e-way bills. It held that the concession under CBIC Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST for an error in one or two digits or characters of a vehicle number could not cover a completely different vehicle.

The order contains inconsistent references to the registration number of the vehicle that was intercepted. Its finding on the issue is nevertheless clear: the registration recorded in the expired e-way bill was entirely different from that of the vehicle transporting the goods.

The bench distinguished the Allahabad High Court rulings cited by the taxpayer. It also relied on decisions concerning incomplete e-way bills and considered the surrounding circumstances relevant to whether an intention to evade tax could be inferred.

The Tribunal said an intention to evade tax could be inferred from the facts of a case, while the resulting presumption remained open to rebuttal. In this case, it found that the expired e-way bill, the different vehicle number, the unexplained route and delay, and the lack of supporting evidence had not been satisfactorily answered by the appellant.

Finding no legal or factual error in the orders below, the bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the penalty.

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.

Read More: Shipping Operator Can’t Claim 60-Day Limit to Charge Demurrage on Goods Seized by Customs: CESTAT