The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), State Bench at Raipur, has held that generating a second e-way bill against the same invoice does not automatically establish a second taxable supply. However, where successive e-way bills contain different movement particulars, the taxpayer must support its explanation that they relate to the same consignment with credible contemporaneous evidence.
The bench of Pradeep Kumar Vyas (Judicial Member) and Chandra Bhushan Singh (Technical Member) dismissed assessee’s appeal and upheld a demand of ₹1,80,139, comprising IGST of ₹76,500, interest of ₹83,639 and penalty of ₹20,000. It found that the separately generated e-way bills, considered alongside unexplained transport discrepancies and the absence of supporting records, evidenced additional outward supplies on which tax had not been discharged.
BUY NOW: E-Way Bill Judgements From 2020–2026 [Includes Orders of GSTAT]
The dispute concerned the financial year 2018–19. During scrutiny of the taxpayer’s returns and e-way bill data, the department noticed that two different e-way bill numbers had been generated against each of two invoices dated May 10, 2018, and June 14, 2018.
According to the department, one outward supply under each invoice had been accounted for, while the later e-way bill represented another consignment moved using the same invoice without separately disclosing or paying tax.
A show-cause notice issued under Section 73 initially proposed IGST of approximately ₹1,53,001, along with interest and penalty. The adjudicating authority ultimately restricted the tax demand to ₹76,500, representing one additional tax component of ₹47,208 against the first invoice and ₹29,292 against the second.
The demand was sustained in the first appellate proceedings, prompting the taxpayer to approach the Tribunal.
The assessee argued that each invoice represented only one genuine supply and one continuous movement of goods. It maintained that fresh e-way bills became necessary because the original bills expired during transit owing to delays, changes of vehicle and trans-shipment.
The taxpayer contended that the goods were supported by invoices, transport documents and e-way bills. It also argued that the department had not established a second sale, a second payment, suppression of turnover or any revenue loss.
Its central submission was that a procedural lapse in transport documentation could not justify a substantive tax demand without proof of another taxable transaction. It further relied on the absence of fraud or an intention to evade tax.
The department disputed the continuity of the consignments, pointing to separately generated e-way bills, changed vehicle particulars and the lack of contemporaneous evidence connecting the later documents to the same physical goods.
The Tribunal expressly rejected an automatic equation between a second e-way bill and a second taxable supply.
It explained that a fresh e-way bill nevertheless constitutes a separate electronic declaration of goods movement. Where different e-way bill numbers are generated against the same invoice on different dates, with separate validity periods or vehicle particulars, the department may legitimately require an explanation.
The burden of establishing unpaid or short-paid tax under Section 73 remains with the department. At the same time, details of actual movement, trans-shipment, vehicle changes and the reasons for generating another e-way bill are particularly within the knowledge of the supplier and transporter.
The Tribunal therefore held that the taxpayer’s explanation had to be tested against transport records and the electronic history of the e-way bills. Its conclusion rested on the cumulative evidence, rather than merely on the existence of duplicate documents.
The first invoice covered goods with a taxable value of ₹2,62,268 and IGST of ₹47,208. The original e-way bill declared a journey of approximately 850 kilometres from Abhanpur/Raipur to Lucknow and was valid until May 19, 2018.
The complete electronic record showed that the transporter had updated the vehicle particulars at Allahabad on May 19. The Tribunal accepted the taxpayer’s explanation that an earlier reference to “Ahmedabad” was a typographical error, since the e-way bill history supported Allahabad as the relevant location.
However, the original bill did not show an extension of validity. A fresh Part-A entry was made on May 21 against the same invoice and goods receipt, again declaring Abhanpur/Raipur as the dispatch point.
The Tribunal found that no delivery acknowledgment, transporter continuity statement, toll or GPS trail, recipient confirmation, or other contemporaneous material had been produced to establish that the later document covered the very goods that had already reached Allahabad.
It also noted that there was no evidence of an unsuccessful attempt to extend the original e-way bill. Consequently, the taxpayer had not satisfactorily explained the fresh declaration of movement.
The second invoice carried a taxable value of ₹1,62,735 and IGST of ₹29,292. Its original e-way bill declared an 810-kilometre journey from Abhanpur/Raipur to Kanpur.
The electronic history recorded vehicle updates at Nagpur and Indore, including two separate entries at Indore. It also showed that the original e-way bill had been extended and remained valid until July 1, 2018.
After that period expired, a fresh Part-A entry was made on July 3, followed by a completed e-way bill on July 5. The later bill recorded a new vehicle, a fresh validity period until July 14 and the full 810-kilometre journey from Abhanpur/Raipur to Kanpur.
The Tribunal also noticed that the same goods receipt number appeared with different dates in the successive entries.
The taxpayer’s explanation that the goods travelled through Raipur, Nagpur, Indore and Kanpur did not reconcile with the declared distance. The order recorded that this route was approximately 1,441 kilometres, considerably longer than the 810 kilometres declared in both e-way bills.
No contemporaneous transport record explained the route deviation, repeated Indore entries, changed goods receipt dates or the renewed declaration of the entire journey. The Tribunal held that these circumstances cumulatively supported the department’s inference of a separate consignment.
The Tribunal examined Rule 138 as it applied to the movements in 2018. It noted that the rules permitted conveyance details to be updated in Part-B when goods were transferred from one vehicle to another during transit.
They also provided for extension of e-way bill validity in exceptional circumstances, including trans-shipment.
The bench clarified that the specific provision allowing extension within eight hours of expiry was introduced subsequently in 2019 and did not govern the disputed movements.
Nevertheless, the mechanisms for vehicle updates and extension already existed in 2018. The actual use of those mechanisms by the transporters, including an extension for the second invoice, was relevant when assessing the explanation for generating fresh bills.
The Tribunal did not treat the transporters’ Part-B updates as a contravention. Their significance was that the prescribed mechanism for continuing a movement had demonstrably been used.
The Tribunal also examined the taxpayer’s assertion that the transactions had already been reported and tax paid.
According to the order, GSTR-1 for June 2018 had not been filed, while GSTR-1 for May 2018 was filed only on July 19, 2026. Contemporaneous payment of the May 2018 liability through GSTR-3B was also not demonstrated.
The bench expressly stated that these deficiencies were considered only to test the taxpayer’s claim of prior reporting and payment. They were not used to introduce an independent demand or enlarge the grounds in the show-cause notice.
Similarly, Section 35(6) was not invoked as a separate or additional basis for confirming the demand.
The taxpayer relied on judgments concerning expired e-way bills, transport documentation defects and duplicate bills.
The Tribunal distinguished cases involving detention or penalties during an otherwise identified movement, including Assistant Commissioner (ST) v. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. It explained that the present dispute involved substantive adjudication under Section 73 over whether fresh declarations represented additional outward supplies.
It also distinguished Ganesh Engineering v. Commissioner, where the factual position was that only one consignment under each invoice had actually been sent and the corresponding tax paid. Those facts were disputed and unestablished in the present case.
Referring to Cosmo Granites (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, the Tribunal accepted that multiple e-way bills against one invoice require a factual examination. It found that the complete records in this appeal did not support the taxpayer’s explanation.
The bench rejected the argument that the absence of fraudulent intent was sufficient to invalidate the demand.
It observed that Section 73 applies to tax not paid or short-paid for reasons other than fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression. Fraudulent intention is therefore not an essential ingredient of liability under that provision.
The Tribunal also upheld interest of ₹83,639, noting that the taxpayer had not identified an error in the period, rate or calculation, or supplied an alternative computation. It declined to interfere with the penalty of ₹20,000.
The Tribunal affirmed the demand of ₹76,500 in IGST, ₹83,639 in interest and ₹20,000 in penalty.
It directed that amounts already paid or deposited, including statutory pre-deposits, must be credited and appropriated in accordance with law so that no amount is recovered twice. The appeal was dismissed without an order as to costs.
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.
