TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
19 Aug 2026 
Just now I had an occasion to see the order from GSTAT on delayed issuance of MOV 09 which has helped the taxpayer to win the case in total. The story started on 16/04/2022 when the taxpayer, an automobile parts dealer in the state of Kerala generated two e invoices under GST. The goods were transported in a motor vehicle on 18/04/2022. The taxpayer genuinely believed that as e invoice was raised, the department is aware of the transactions and accordingly, e way bill was not generated. As the driver of the vehicle could not show the e way bill to squad, the vehicle was detained. MOV 07 was issued on 18/04/2022. The taxpayer furnished bonds valid till 18/04/2027 and got released the detained goods.
Thereafter, on 04/06/2022, MOV 09 was passed confirming the penalty. Aggrieved by the above, the taxpayer approached the first appellate authority in time. The first appellate authority confirmed the MOV 09 dated 04/06/2022 in the following words vide their order dated 04/11/2022 "The appellant transported automobile spare parts with two e-invoices for values Rs.3,41,952 and Rs. 4498/- without e-way bill as stipulated under the Act. Therefore, transaction is not genuine as per GST Act and Rules and it will amount to an act in contravention of the provision of the Act and attracts penalty. So imposition of penalty is proper as per law".
The beauty of the story is that the taxpayer honestly believed that as all the inputs as required in e way bill such as supplier, receiver, value of goods etc. are already available with the department, e way bill was not mandatory. Aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority, the taxpayer preferred the second appeal which came up for hearing before the division bench (Thiruvananthapuram) on 31/07/2026 through virtual hearing. The order was passed on 14/08/2026 in the matter of Siddhi Vinayak Automobiles Versus The Commissioner Of Kerala State GST, Thiruvananthapuram. - 2026 (8) TMI 1052 - GSTAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .
The taxpayer argued that as against MOV 07 dated 18/04/2022, MOV 09 was issued with inordinate delay only on 04/06/2022 whereas the law mandates that MOV 09 to be issued within seven days from date of issuance of MOV 07 which was 18/04/2022. The taxpayer argued that as MOV 09 was not passed in line with the requirements, the same is invalid. The major argument by the department was that the taxpayer is raising the issue on delayed issuing of MOV 09 only at the GSTAT for the first time. The argument was that it was a fact available on record and the taxpayer has not raised this objection at the first appeal level and accordingly, the GSTAT is not bound to take this argument which is a question of fact and being raised for the first time before GSTAT.
The Tribunal examined this aspect and concluded that as the information was already available before the first appellate authority on 04/11/2022, the first appellate authority was bound to notice the delayed passing of MOV 09 and accordingly should have allowed the appeal of the taxpayer with consequential reliefs. However, as the same was not done by the GST Department, the arguments that raising this issue for the first time before GSTAT is incorrect, is incorrect. The GSTAT passed orders on 14/08/2026 on the following lines "8.0 In view of the above, we find that the Hon'ble High Courts have consistently held that the timelines of Section 129 (3) have to be adhered to mandatorily. We find that the Sub-section (3) in section 129 provides for a specific period of seven days for passing of an order. The seven days is to be reckoned from date of service of the notice, specifying the penalty payable. Issuance and receipt of the penalty notice and the Order is not in dispute. The Limitation is clear and definite. The facts of the case indicate that the officers did not act in time in accordance with the provisions, we hence find no reason to sustain the penalties imposed. There was nothing preventing the Respondent state tax authority from passing the order within 7 days, especially since, if the matter is kept pending, the proceedings would be barred by limitation. 9.0 We find that the Respondent has failed to issue the Order for imposing penalty under Section 129(3) of the CGST /KGST Act, 2017, within the mandatory time limit of 7 days. Therefore, the Order MOV 09 dated 4-6-2022 issued after 47 days from the date of Notice MOV 07 dated 18-4-2022 is illegal and without jurisdiction. The First Appellate Authority has failed to look into this basic fact which was apparent on record. The impugned OIA is therefore liable to be set aside. 10.0 The impugned Order-in-appeal is set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief. The Respondent is directed to release the Bank Guarantee to the appellants immediately on receipt of this Order.
Key take aways: It is good that orders by way of disposal of appeal (rather than mere remand) has started to come from benches of GSTAT. It is a good development as there is no duplication of work for taxpayer as well as tax officials. In the initial years, all over India, innumerable orders might have been passed on identical issues and wherever the time gap between MOV 07 and MOV 09 is more than seven days, the taxpayers may prefer the second appeal immediately in case it has already crossed first appeal with adverse order from the first appellate authority. It is absolutely essential to take stock of all similar cases as quickly as possible to seek timely remedy.
This decision of the GSTAT has come recently which is a torch light for all cases under identical circumstances, even if the second appeal is not filed till date, as the second appeal may still be filed before September 2026 by seeking condonation of the delay. One of the reasons for such condonation is that the developments have come to light only through this article. It is expected that readers take optimum advantages.