2026-VIL-200-GSTAT-RPR
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-200-GSTAT-RPR

SGST Tribunal

GST - Bill-to/Ship-to transaction - Section 10(1)(b) of IGST Act, 2017 - Rule 138(2) of CGST Rules, 2017 - Person responsible for generating e-way bill - Appellant supplied TMT bars from one State to another, and the invoices were issued to an intermediate purchaser as the "Bill-to" party and to the consignee as the "Ship-to" party - The consignee, who arranged the transport, generated the e-way bills before interception on invoices raised by the intermediary - The Tax Officer detained the vehicle on the ground that the actual seller had neither issued the invoice nor generated the e-way bill - Whether the transaction is a Bill-to/Ship-to transaction and whether the e-way bills generated by the consignee are valid - HELD - Section 10(1)(b) involves three persons, the consignor, the intermediate person and the consignee. In a Bill-to/Ship-to transaction the intermediate person directs the supplier to dispatch the goods directly to the ultimate recipient and thereafter raises a separate invoice for the onward supply. It is a recognised commercial practice and, by itself, not a contravention, provided the transactions are genuine, duly documented, appropriately accounted for and the tax liability is discharged - Under Rule 138(2), the consignor or the consignee who causes the movement is required to generate the e-way bill. The invoices recorded the party responsible for transport, and the consignee generated the e-way bills before interception. The intermediary may retain the original invoice and issue a separate invoice without disclosing the original supplier. All four invoices were e-invoices available on the portal and capable of verification by the department. The email correspondence and factory-gate records, which showed departure shortly before interception near the factory, supported the genuine movement - The transaction is held to be a Bill-to/Ship-to transaction, and the allegation that the actual supplier failed to generate the invoice and e-way bill is not sustainable – The appeal is allowedrnrn rnrn^Penalty under Section 129(1)(a) - Goods accompanied by invoices and e-way bills in Bill-to/Ship-to transaction - Appellant's reply to the department was not considered by the Assessing Officer or the Appellate Authority - Appellant contended that goods were accompanied by valid invoices and e-way bills, that penalty was imposed without following the procedure, and that intent to evade tax was not proved - Whether penalty under Section 129(1)(a) is maintainable - HELD - Since the case of the Appellant is covered by the Bill-to/Ship-to transaction and all necessary requirements were complied with, Section 129 is not applied. The vehicle was intercepted a short time after leaving the factory and at a short distance from it, which supports the genuine movement of the goods. The point regarding proof of intent to evade tax was not considered in detail - The impugned action is not sustainable in law, and 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?