TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1744
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....U.P. GST Act, 2017 by the original adjudicating authority order no ZD090725182974N dt. 18.7.2025 and first appellate authority order dt. KNP4/484/AD091025014132Q/2526AKNP002257/2025 dt. 27.11.2025 and, in respect of goods being transported in vehicle No. UP78GN8559 without E-way Bill. 1.1 On 18.07.2025, the vehicle carrying the goods were intercepted, which were accompanied by Delivery Challan No. 01 dated 18.07.2025 while an Excavator Machine, which was also found along with the goods as mentioned in the challan issued by M/s D.S. Traders, Kanpur, which was being transported without a valid e-Way Bill and consequently treated the transportation as a violation of the Rule 138 Under of UP GST Act provisions relating to movement of goods. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of remedy that this hon'ble tribunal may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case. SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT: 4.0 The appellant contended that the movement was not pursuant to a sale, but was for use/work at the site and was supported by the delivery challan and other documents. It was argued that there was no intention to evade tax and that the absence/non-generation of the e-Way Bill was at most a technical/procedural lapse. 4.1 The goods in question of without E-way bill was having a delivery challan for return of the machine. 4.2 The appellant submitted that both the consignor and consignee in the Delivery Challan bear the same GSTIN 09GYMPS0010J1Z7. The Appellant is simultaneously the sender and the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ricship Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India The Allahabad High Court in D and D Construction and Developers Company v. Additional Commissioner (April 8, 2025) i. M/S Abhay Prakash Katariar vs State Of UP (Allahabad High Court, September 22, 2025) ii. Sachin Jain v. State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, November 12, 2025) iii. M/s. Varun Beverages Limited v. State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court, May 2024) iv. M/s. Shakuntalam Associates v. Additional Commissioner (Allahabad High Court, July 30, 2025) v. Tata Hitachi Construction Machinery Company (P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court, May 9, 2025) vi. M/s CJ Darcl Logistics Ltd. v. State of U.P. (Allahabad High Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the appellant or was being returned from the project site does not, by itself, exempt the appellant from complying with the statutory requirements relating to transportation of goods. 5.2 The respondent further submitted that the Delivery Challan relied upon by the appellant cannot substitute the e-Way Bill where generation of an e-Way Bill is otherwise mandatory. The plea that there was no sale or intention to evade tax does not, by itself, absolve the appellant from the statutory contravention. 5.3 The respondent specifically disputed the appellant's contention regarding the alleged 20-kilometre exemption and submitted that the appellant has not produced any applicable notification or circular issued by the competent authorit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant has also failed to satisfactorily establish the tax treatment of the consideration received for use of the excavator at the project site. Though it has been stated that the machine was operated on an hourly basis, no sufficient evidence regarding the hours of operation, consideration charged and corresponding discharge of GST has been produced. This circumstance, coupled with transportation without an e-Way Bill, gives rise to a reasonable inference of intention to evade tax and cannot be treated as a mere technical lapse. 6.3 The contention regarding the alleged 20-kilometre exemption also cannot be accepted in the absence of satisfactory evidence establishing that the present movement was specifically covered by the applicable ....