GST Appellate Tribunal, Agra25 September 2026

Anand Enterprises v. Ruby Singh, Additional Commissioner

For revenue

The ruling in brief

Where vehicle carrying electrical equipment was intercepted with expired e-way bill, movement involved a different vehicle without Part-B updation and route deviation, and no explanation or evidence was furnished to rebut presumption of intent to evade, liability for penalty under section 129 was justified as valid Part-B is mandatory and minor error circular did not cover total vehicle substitution

Provisions considered

Section 129, read with section 68 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 138 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017

This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.

The ruling in brief

Related rulings

GSTAT Agra25 Sept 2026

For assessee

Neeraj Shukla v. Jay Steels

Where consignment of used iron was transported with valid invoice and bilty but without e-way bill on 24 November 2017, since e-way bill requirement for inter- State movement was not mandatory on that date and no evasion intent was found, detention and penalty imposed were unsustainable and revenue's appeal was to be dismissed

GSTAT Varanasi22 Sept 2026

For assessee

Bitchem Asphalt Technologies Ltd. v. Prakash Yadav Joint Commissioner (IT)

Where goods were transported inter-state with valid e-way bill and tax invoice, and route deviation occurred to avoid hilly terrain for vehicle safety, with no evidence of intent to deliver to unauthorized recipient or evade tax, valid documents and plausible explanation precluded penalty as route choice did not violate any legal provision or indicate mala fide intent

GSTAT Lucknow16 Sept 2026

For assessee

Jai Enterprises v. Dr. Anupama Goyal

Where goods in transit were detained on suspicion of reuse of invoices and e- way bills based solely on vehicle movement data and photographs, but there was no discrepancy in goods or documents and no cogent evidence of document reuse or evasion, mere suspicion could not justify detention or penalty and burden of proof remained on revenue, thus tax and penalty were not sustainable

Anand Enterprises v. Ruby Singh, Additional Commissioner

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Anand Enterprises v. Ruby Singh, Additional Commissioner

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Neeraj Shukla v. Jay Steels

Bitchem Asphalt Technologies Ltd. v. Prakash Yadav Joint Commissioner (IT)

Jai Enterprises v. Dr. Anupama Goyal

Read the full analysis