TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 791
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....29 of the UPGST Act, 2017, was rejected and the penalty of Rs. 4,09,854/-, comprising Rs. 2,04,927/- under CGST and Rs. 2,04,927/- under SGST, was upheld. 1.2 The dispute relates to the transportation of TMT bars found being carried in vehicle No. UP 44 BT 5284, whereas the e-way bill and other documents available at the time of interception reflected vehicle No. UP 82 T 2315. Part-B of the e-way bill had not been updated. 2.0 QUESTION OF LAW INVOLVED 2.1 No E-way bill was available for the transaction in question; since a question of law is involved, therefore, this matter is fit for hearing before the Division Bench. 3.0 GROUNDS OF APPEAL 3.1 The appellant has submitted that M/s Ambrosial India placed a purchase order dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....weight of the goods arose only because the original vehicle allegedly broke down and was replaced by another vehicle. According to the appellant, the goods remained the same and there was no discrepancy in the quantity of goods. 4.2 It was also submitted that the alleged discrepancy related to the subsequent movement of the goods after the goods had already been delivered to and received by the purchaser. Therefore, the appellant had no control over the subsequent movement or the e-way bill generated for such subsequent movement. 4.3 The appellant further contended that the authorities had wrongly relied upon the gross vehicle weight and had failed to appreciate that the vehicle had subsequently been changed. It was also contended tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....M/s Ambrosial India, GSTIN-09BBXPM6906L1ZZ, was accompanied by E-way Bill No. 43136337096 dated 23.08.2023, in which vehicle No. UP 82 T 2315 was mentioned, whereas the goods were found being transported in vehicle No. UP 44 BT 5284. 6.2 Therefore, no valid e-way bill corresponding to the actual vehicle transporting the goods covered by Invoice No. 61 dated 23.08.2023 had been generated, although the total value of the goods was more than Rs. 50,000/-. 6.3 As regards the weight of the goods in question, a weighment slip was produced by the appellant at the time of interception, wherein the gross weight, including vehicle No. UP 82 T 2315, was declared as 33,645 kg, and the net weight of the goods was declared as 21,280 kg. On the othe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, the invoice and other documents relating to the appellant's transaction were found without any updated or new e-way bill corresponding to the actual vehicle carrying the goods. 6.8 It is observed that the e-way bill produced by the appellant in response to the notice was also incorrectly filled in Part-B, wherein the vehicle details of the primary vehicle used for delivery of the goods in the first transaction were entered. The appellant sought to explain the discrepancy on the ground that the vehicle had broken down and that the goods were subsequently transferred to another vehicle. 6.9 We observe that the appellant has not produced satisfactory contemporaneous evidence establishing that vehicle No. UP 82 T 2315 actually broke do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ransported in a vehicle different from the vehicle declared in the e-way bill. 6.13 Further, the appellant has failed to establish by reliable supportive evidence, that the original vehicle had broken down and that the change to vehicle No. UP 44 BT 5284 was an unavoidable event which resulted in the vehicle particulars not being updated in the e-way bill. 6.14 We have also considered the submission that the discrepancy in the vehicle number was only a minor or technical lapse. In our considered view, the facts of the present case do not support such characterization. 6.15 Once the first movement had concluded, any subsequent movement of the goods was required to be supported by a separate and valid documentary trail. Further, wher....