2026-VIL-190-GSTAT-RPR
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-190-GSTAT-RPR

SGST Tribunal

GST - Duplicate e-way bills against same invoice - The Department noticed two e-way bills generated on different dates against each of two invoices and alleged that the later e-way bill in each pair represented another movement on which tax was not paid. The Appellant contended that there was one continuous movement and that the later e-way bills were generated only because the earlier ones expired during transit owing to delay, change of vehicle and trans-shipment - Whether the later e-way bills evidence separate consignments and additional outward supplies, and whether the Appellant discharged the evidentiary burden of showing continuity of the same consignment - HELD - A second e-way bill does not by itself create a presumption of a second taxable supply, and the burden of establishing short payment under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 remains on the Department. However, it is a separate contemporaneous declaration of movement with its own number, validity and vehicle particulars. Facts about actual movement, trans-shipment and the reason for the later e-way bill are especially within the knowledge of the Appellant and its transporter, and the explanation must be tested against the transport record and the e-way bill history - Rule 138 provided for Part-B updating on change of conveyance and for extension of validity in exceptional circumstances including trans-shipment. For one invoice, the original e-way bill expired without extension and a fresh e-way bill showing the same dispatch place was generated after expiry. For the other invoice, the original e-way bill itself showed repeated vehicle updates and an extension, yet a new e-way bill declared a new vehicle, a fresh validity period and the full original distance, with changing GR dates and a pleaded route unreconciled with the declared distance. No delivery acknowledgment, transporter continuity statement, toll or GPS record or recipient confirmation was produced to establish that the same goods moved. The Appellant also failed to show that the tax on these supplies was reported and paid in the returns - The later e-way bills evidence separate consignments, and the demand of IGST under Section 73 is upheld – The appeal is dismissed - Interest and penalty on demand under Section 73 - Plea of absence of fraud or intention to evade - HELD - Section 73 applies to tax not paid or short-paid for reasons other than fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression, so absence of fraudulent intent does not neutralise a liability established under it. Interest is attracted under Section 50(1) - Penalty under Section 73(9) of ten per cent of the tax determined or the prescribed minimum, whichever is higher, does not call for interference, and the adjudicating authority confined the tax to less than proposed in the notice - The interest and penalty are upheld, the appeal is dismissed.
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?