2026-VIL-85-GSTAT-LCK
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-85-GSTAT-LCK

SGST Tribunal

GST - Transportation of goods - Vehicle number mismatch in E-way bill - Penalty under Section 129 - Goods transported in vehicle different from vehicle declared in e-way bill. Consignor claimed first transaction was completed and subsequent movement by purchaser where original vehicle allegedly broke down and goods transferred to different vehicle. Fresh e-way bill was later generated by purchaser for further sale but old vehicle number was inadvertently mentioned - Whether discrepancy in vehicle number mentioned in e-way bill and vehicle actually transporting goods constitutes violation of statutory requirements justifying penalty under Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD - E-way bill is statutory documentary requirement for movement of goods and must correspond with actual vehicle carrying goods. No valid e-way bill corresponding to actual vehicle transporting goods had been generated although value of goods was more than Rs. 50,000/-. Weight of goods as recorded at weighment slip showed gross weight and net weight but weight calculated from gross weight of actual vehicle and its unladen weight was different from quantity declared in invoice contrary to Section 31 and Rule 138 read with Section 129(1) - Appellant failed to produce satisfactory contemporaneous evidence establishing that original vehicle broke down and goods were subsequently transferred. Explanation regarding breakdown remained substantially claim made subsequently during appellate proceedings. Physical quantity of goods and absence of fake invoice or undervaluation or actual revenue loss do not absolve from statutory documentary compliance – Further, the discrepancy in vehicle number cannot be characterized as minor or technical lapse. Once first movement concluded any subsequent movement required separate and valid documentary trail. Where vehicle was changed vehicle particulars in e-way bill required to correspond with vehicle actually carrying goods. Statutory documentary trail did not correspond with actual movement at time of interception. Absence of satisfactory evidence explaining change of vehicle gives rise to reasonable inference of intention to evade tax – Levy of penalty is upheld and the appeal is rejected
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST Critical issues: ITC on...
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?