2026-VIL-139-GSTAT-BLR

SGST Tribunal

GST - Penalty under Section 129 of the CGST Act for expired e-way bill - The pin code of the consignor and consignee was wrongly entered due to a typographical error, which reduced the distance and validity period - Appellant's consignment of goods for purchase return was intercepted while accompanied by a delivery challan and an e-way bill which had expired - whereupon the proper officer treated the movement as one without e-way bill and imposed penalty under Section 129, which the appellate authority confirmed - Whether imposition of penalty under Section 129 is justified for non-validation or non-extension of the e-way bill period as per Rule 138 - HELD - Though Section 129 does not specifically provide for mens rea, the object of enacting such a section in a taxing enactment is only to prevent evasion of tax and mens rea should be read into it - The Board Circular giving instances where Section 129 need not be invoked is binding on the proper officer by virtue of Section 168 - Physical verification found the quantity and description of goods in order with the documents - The decision relied upon by the Respondent on Part-B is not applied as the jurisdictional High Court did not subscribe to it, and the other decisions relied upon by the Respondent support the Appellant, holding that a distinction is made between serious and substantive violations and minor or procedural ones and that Section 129 is a machinery provision to check evasion of tax - Procedural lapses or mistakes cannot be a ground for invoking Section 129 in the absence of intention to evade payment of tax, and the reasonableness of the explanation is a relevant factor – When the appellate authority did not allege mens rea, invoking Section 129 was not valid and justified - The order confirming the penalty is set aside and the appeal is allowed

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page