GST invoice carriage and route deviation rules: electronic invoice exception is limited, and route variation alone does not prove evasion.

Rule 138A of the West Bengal GST Rules requires the person in charge of a conveyance to carry the invoice, and electronic production is permitted only within the limited exception for invoices issued under Rule 48(4). A mobile image of the tax invoice does not satisfy that obligation unless the statutory exception applies. On Section 129, mere deviation from the declared route, or interception away from the expected path, is not enough to sustain penalty without material showing discrepancy in goods or an intention to evade tax. The note therefore treats route variation alone as insufficient to justify detention or penalty under the GST regime.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether carrying only an image of the tax invoice in a mobile device satisfies the obligation under Rule 138A of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017; (ii) Whether mere deviation from the declared route or interception at a place not en route geographically, without evidence of evasion, justifies invocation of Section 129 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Issue (i): Whether carrying only an image of the tax invoice in a mobile device satisfies the obligation under Rule 138A of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

Analysis: Rule 138A(1)(a) requires the person in charge of a conveyance to carry the invoice, bill of supply, or delivery challan. Rule 138A(2) permits electronic production of the invoice only where the invoice is issued in the manner prescribed under Rule 48(4). On a conjoint reading of these provisions, the physical copy of the tax invoice remains necessary unless the case falls within the specific exception for electronically issued invoices. The record did not show that the invoice was produced electronically under that exception.

Conclusion: The obligation to carry the physical copy of the tax invoice was not complied with, and the assessee's contention on this issue was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether mere deviation from the declared route or interception at a place not en route geographically, without evidence of evasion, justifies invocation of Section 129 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The judgment notes the absence of any statutory provision requiring disclosure of the transportation route under the GST regime. It further records that the e-way bill was produced, there was no discrepancy in the goods, and no finding was returned that the petitioner intended to evade tax. In such circumstances, route deviation by itself was held insufficient to infer tax evasion or to sustain penalty under Section 129.

Conclusion: Section 129 could not be validly invoked on the facts, and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The penalty and appellate orders were set aside, and the writ petition succeeded with liberty to seek refund of the penalty already paid.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the GST regime, route variation or interception away from the declared path, without material showing discrepancy in goods or intention to evade tax, does not by itself justify penalty under Section 129; and electronic substitution for the tax invoice is permissible only within the specific exception provided by the rules.

---