2026 (2) TMI 598 - HC - GST

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 ... Suspension of registration and prohibition on taxable supply - Validity of tax invoice during suspension of registration - Requirement to generate e-way bill by supplier/recipient/owner - Specified documents accompanying goods in transit - Inapplicability of administrative circular where prescribed documents are absent - HELD THAT:- No material has been brought on record to show that the supplier's registration has been restored. It was the duty of the petitioner that before movement of consignment it should have furnished information relating to the said goods as specified in Part A Form GST- EWB 01 respectively at the common portal along with such other information as required at the common portal i.e. e-way bill, but the petitioner at its own wisdom has not done so. Once there is no specified documents accompanying the goods as no e-way bill was found, the tax invoice which was found accompanying the goods cannot be treated as specified documents in view of Rule 21-A (3) of the Rules along with sections 2(66) and 31 of the Act. Once there is neither any prescribed document or tax invoice accompanying the goods in transit, the Circular dated 31.12.2018 Clause (6) is of no aid to the petitioner. In the present case, it is admitted fact that the registration of the supplier was suspended on 21.11.2025, tax invoice was issued hereafter on 3.12.2025 and the suspension of registration of the supplier is not revoked. Further e-way bill as required under Rule 138(3) has not been generated before passing of the seizure order by the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be treated as owner of the goods as no specified documents could be found accompanying the goods. In the facts and circumstances as well as reasons stated herein above, no interference is called for with the impugned orders. - Both the writ petitions fail and are 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).