GST Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow9 September 2026

Ferrous Infra Solutions v. Commissioner SGST Uttar Pradesh

For revenue

The ruling in brief

Where goods were supplied under invoice with e-way bill mentioning vehicle UP 82 T 2315 but were transported in vehicle UP 44 BT 5284 without updating Part-B, and weighbridge and RC details revealed discrepancy, absence of contemporaneous proof for breakdown and incorrect e-way bill entry showed non-compliance beyond minor lapse, reasonably indicating intent to evade and justifying detention and penalty under Section 129

Provisions considered

Section 129, read with sections 31 and 126, 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 revenue

Anand Enterprises v. Ruby Singh, Additional Commissioner

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

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

Ferrous Infra Solutions v. Commissioner SGST Uttar Pradesh

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Ferrous Infra Solutions v. Commissioner SGST Uttar Pradesh

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Anand Enterprises v. Ruby Singh, Additional Commissioner

Neeraj Shukla v. Jay Steels

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

Read the full analysis