Suspension of GST registration and e way bill noncompliance bar reliance on tax invoices and administrative circulars, petition dismissed

Suspension of registration prevents the supplier from lawfully affecting taxable supply where statutorily prescribed transit documents are absent. The text explains that a tax invoice issued after suspension cannot substitute for the mandatory documents required for movement of goods; absence of an e way bill and other specified documents defeats reliance on an administrative circular. Because the supplier's registration remained suspended and no e way bill was generated before seizure, the mover could not be treated as owner and relief based on the circular was unavailable. Consequently, the impugned orders upholding seizure were sustained and the writ petitions dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner, who received goods from a supplier whose GST registration was under suspension and where no e-way bill was generated, was entitled to release of the detained goods under section 129(1)(a) of the UPGST Act instead of imposition of penalty/seizure under section 129(1)(b).

Analysis: The supplier's registration was suspended w.e.f. 21.11.2025 and a tax invoice issued on 03.12.2025 cannot be treated as a valid tax invoice or as one of the specified documents for movement while suspension subsisted, having regard to Rule 21-A(3) of the UPGST Rules, 2017 and the definition of invoice under section 2(66) read with section 31 of the UPGST Act. The e-way bill could only be generated by a registered person (supplier/recipient/transport) in terms of Rule 138(3) of the UPGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner admitted that no e-way bill was generated and produced no material showing restoration of the supplier's registration. In absence of the prescribed/ specified documents accompanying the goods in transit, the concession in Circular No. 76/50/2018 GST dated 31.12.2018 (relied upon for release under section 129(1)(a)) does not apply. The petitioner, alleging ownership, had the obligation to ensure generation of the e-way bill before movement but failed to do so.

Conclusion: The petitioner is not entitled to release of the goods under section 129(1)(a); the impugned orders are upheld and the writ petitions are dismissed against the petitioner (resulting in a decision in favour of the Revenue).

---