A GST Appellate Tribunal bench in Uttar Pradesh has delivered opposing opinions on whether an entirely different vehicle number in an e-way bill justified a ₹10.10 lakh penalty against the respondent assessee. The dispute has been referred for hearing by another member, leaving the departmental appeal unresolved.

The case arose after a State Tax mobile squad intercepted a truck travelling from Delhi to Lucknow at the Naviganj toll plaza in Mainpuri district at 3:51 am on March 25, 2025. The truck was carrying electrical equipment for transfer between assessee’s establishments in New Delhi and Lucknow. The driver produced documents for two consignments, including invoices and separate e-way bills.

Buy Now: 100+ Judgements On Customs Classification

One e-way bill recorded the truck’s actual registration number, DL-01MB-3570. The other recorded DL-01LAL-7401. Treating the second e-way bill as invalid for the movement of goods, the adjudicating officer imposed a penalty of ₹10,10,186 under Section 129(3) of the CGST and UPGST Acts on April 1, 2025. The assessee deposited the amount under protest to secure the release of the goods and vehicle.

The assessee argued that the mismatch was a bona fide mistake and that the other documents correctly described the goods and the transaction. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals), State Tax, Etawah, accepted its appeal and set aside the penalty on July 9, 2025. The Uttar Pradesh tax department then appealed to the GST Appellate Tribunal.

Judicial Member Ajeet Singh would have restored the penalty. He held that the CBIC circular granting relief for minor e-way bill errors covers mistakes involving one or two digits or characters in a vehicle number, not the entry of an entirely different registration number. In his view, an e-way bill with an incorrect vehicle number in Part B could not be treated as a valid document for the truck carrying the goods.

The Judicial Member also rejected assessee’s submission that it had corrected the mistake before interception. The truck was stopped at 3:51 am, whereas the correction was made at 9:58 am, more than six hours later. He reasoned that an amendment after interception could not cure the defect present when the goods were moving.

Considering the circumstances and the case law cited by the department, he found that the mismatch raised a rebuttable presumption of an intention to evade tax which assessee had failed to rebut. His opinion allowed the departmental appeal, set aside the first appellate order and restored the adjudicating officer’s penalty.

Technical Member Vivek Kumar reached the opposite conclusion. He noted that the officers had identified no discrepancy in the goods’ quantity, description, value or declared destination. The goods were accompanied by two e-invoices and two e-way bills, and one e-way bill correctly identified the truck.

The Technical Member drew attention to the relationship between the second e-invoice and its e-way bill: according to his opinion, the e-invoice carried the correct vehicle number, while the corresponding e-way bill carried the wrong one. He regarded that difference as evidence of a genuine mistake, rather than an attempt to conceal the movement of goods.

He further observed that the adjudicating officer’s penalty order did not record a finding of intention to evade tax, and that the department’s appeal sought to justify the penalty on the basis of a violation of the e-way bill rules. Relying on Allahabad High Court decisions requiring evidence of intent in Section 129 penalty cases, he held that the transaction documents rebutted any presumption of evasion.

The Technical Member also disagreed with the suggestion that assessee might have cancelled or reused the documents if the truck had not been intercepted. He described that possibility as unsupported speculation. In his opinion, the first appellate authority had rightly quashed the penalty and the department’s appeal should be dismissed.

The difference between the members is therefore broader than whether Part B contained an incorrect number. They disagree on what the complete vehicle-number mismatch proves: the Judicial Member considered it a serious defect supporting an unrebutted presumption of evasion, while the Technical Member considered the accompanying documents sufficient to establish a bona fide error and negate that presumption.

Because the members issued conflicting opinions, they referred the specified point of difference to the Vice President, GSTAT, Uttar Pradesh, under Section 109(9) of the CGST Act. The Registry was directed to place the record and both opinions before the Vice President for nomination of another member to hear the issue. Neither opinion is a final majority decision disposing of the departmental appeal.

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: 5.525 Kg of Suspected Marijuana Seized at Delhi Airport; Myanmar Passenger Arrested