2026-VIL-204-GSTAT-RPR
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-204-GSTAT-RPR

SGST Tribunal

GST - Requirement of e-way bill for intra-State movement - Rule 138(14)(d) - State Notification - Appellant, a manufacturer of beverages, moved goods from one district to another by road on a tax invoice and the transporter's builty without an e-way bill - Appellant pleaded that the movement was intra-State, that it attempted to generate the e-way bill but could not because of a technical issue with the portal, and that dispatch was urgent - Whether an e-way bill was legally required for the movement - HELD - The movement is not outside the e-way bill regime merely because it is intra-State. The State Notification exempted intra-State movement generally but retained the requirement for specified goods, including beverages, moving from one district to another where the consignment value exceeded the prescribed threshold. The notification continued to operate on the date of movement, and prima facie generation of an e-way bill was required. The plea was one of complete non-generation and not of a minor clerical defect. The record contained no contemporaneous portal error, help-desk ticket or complaint, and no material supporting the claimed urgency. The interval of thirty minutes between invoice preparation and removal called for scrutiny but did not itself disprove the claim - The movement was prima facie subject to the e-way bill requirement and the pleaded technical failure and urgency were not established on the record, but the proceedings are not annulled on the footing that no contravention could arise - The appeal stands disposed ofrnrn rnrnIssue 2: Section 129(3) and (4) - Validity of adjudication - Opportunity of hearing and reasoned order - Effect of payment through DRC-03 - MOV-07 allowed seven days to show cause, yet MOV-09 was passed the next day, the copy of MOV-09 carried unselected alternatives and drafting placeholders in the part meant for reasons - Appellant had paid the penalty to secure release of goods and conveyance - Whether the penalty can be sustained on the adjudication actually undertaken under Section 129 - HELD - Section 129(4) prohibits determination of penalty under sub-section (3) without an opportunity of being heard, and the requirement is substantive, not ritualistic. The Supreme Court in ASP Traders held that even where the amount is paid and goods are released, the proper officer must pass a reasoned final order in MOV-09 after granting the hearing and upload the summary in DRC-07, and that payment cannot be treated as waiver. An authority exercising quasi-judicial functions must record clear and explicit reasons. MOV-09 did not disclose a clear consideration of the explanation, the documents said to have accompanied the goods or the basis of the final determination, and could not be treated as a completed speaking adjudication. The non-appearance of the Appellant before the Appellate Authority did not convert a non-speaking adjudication into a valid one, as the appellate authority was still required to examine the grounds. The payment cannot be treated as conclusive admission of legal liability - The penalty cannot be sustained on the adjudication actually undertaken, and the order in appeal and MOV-09 are set aside.rnrn rnrnIssue 3: Remand under Section 113(1) of CGST Act - Scope of remand in Section 129 proceedings - Defects in the adjudication related to hearing and reasons, while MOV-07 disclosed an intelligible allegation of movement of goods without an e-way bill - Whether the Tribunal should confirm the penalty, annul the proceedings, or remit the matter, and to which authority - HELD - It would not be appropriate to confirm the penalty solely because non-generation is admitted, or to grant final exoneration without a valid adjudication of the explanation and surrounding facts. Section 113(1) empowers the Tribunal to refer the case back to the original adjudicating authority with directions for fresh adjudication, after taking additional evidence if necessary. As the infirmity originates in the original determination and the matters are primarily factual and adjudicatory, remand to the original adjudicating authority is the appropriate course, since remand to the First Appellate Authority would not cure the foundational defect. The remand is confined to the allegation in MOV-07, with no new factual foundation or charge. The officer shall verify the documents actually produced at interception, examine the timing of the alleged portal attempts and the claimed urgency, and pass a fresh speaking order after an effective personal hearing, with DRC-07 as applicable. The amount paid shall abide by the fresh adjudication and is not a waiver of the right to contest the levy - The matter is remitted to the original adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication within the scope of that notice, with all contentions on merits kept open - The appeal stands disposed of
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?