2026-VIL-164-GSTAT-GZB
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-164-GSTAT-GZB

SGST Tribunal

GST - Maintainability of appeal before the Tribunal where the penalty is below the monetary limit prescribed under Section 112(2) - Appellant challenged the Order-in-Appeal upholding the penalty under Section 129 imposed for not entering vehicle details in Part B of e-way bills. The penalty was below the monetary limit specified for appeals before the Tribunal - Whether the Tribunal can hear an appeal where the penalty is below the monetary limit specified in Section 112(2) - HELD - Section 112(2) gives the Tribunal discretion to refuse admission of an appeal below the specified monetary limit. It does not completely bar such an appeal. The appeal raises a question about an express exception in the Rules governing the movement of goods and the legality of the penalty. The Tribunal therefore exercises its discretion to hear and decide the appeal on merits - Penalty under Section 129 for not filling Part B of e-way bill during initial movement from consignor's place of business to transporter's premises within the State - Goods were sent from the Appellant's additional place of business to the transporter's receiving premises in the same State, a distance of less than 30 km, to be brought together before onward dispatch to the consignee - The vehicle number was not entered in Part B of the two e-way bills. The adjudicating authority imposed penalty under Section 129 - Whether leaving Part B unfilled during that journey is a breach attracting Section 129 - HELD – The third proviso to Rule 138(3) permits vehicle details to be left unfilled in Part B where goods are transported up to fifty kilometres within the State from the consignor's place of business to the transporter's place of business for further transportation. It does not exempt every journey of less than 50 km. The party claiming the benefit must prove that the conditions of the proviso are met. The recorded facts about the originating depot, the identified transporter's warehouse and the initial journey for consolidation bring the movement within the proviso - Explanation 2 to Rule 138(3) expressly preserves the exceptions in the third proviso, so the contention that every road movement without Part B is invalid overlooks them. The proviso to Rule 138(5) deals with a different situation, namely the final journey to the consignee's premises. An omission expressly permitted by the Rules cannot be treated as a breach of those Rules - The decisions on mens rea do not justify a penalty where the omission falls within an applicable statutory exception. This finding is confined to the initial journey, and any later movement remains subject to the requirements applicable to it. The objections on DIN, authentication and Rule 142 summaries are not decided - The Order-in-Appeal and the Order-in-Original are set aside. The penalty is cancelled - The appeal is allowed
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Dr. G. Gokul Kishore

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST & Customs updates: Sep'26
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?