TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1987
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by (i) lorry receipt dated 20.06.2019, (ii) tax invoice Nos. 19KL2700011917 and 19KL2700011918 dated 20.06.2019, (iii) two e-way bills bearing nos. 261115787422 and 231115787423 dated 20.06.2019 and (iv) test certificate no. 7102013196 dated 20.06.2019. A verification of the documents revealed that the e-way bills raised on 20.09.2019 @ 12.52 PM had expired on 21.06.2019. The proper officer treated the consignment as not supported by documents/eway bills for the movement of goods from Nagpur to Hulugondanahalli, Ramnagar district and a notice dated 25.06.2019 in Form GST MOV 07 was issued invoking Section 129 of the Act. (3) The appellant had submitted their objections vide letter dated 29.06.2019 stating that they had taken a software for generation of e-way bills that automatically calculated the distance and incorporated the validity period, upon entering the destination details. The operator on duty had entered 'Ramnagar' instead of "Ramanagara" in the system while generating the e-way bills for the invoices. Ramnagar is located in Nagpur district, Maharashtra and hence the system had taken the distance as 83 kms and accordingly the validity of the e-way bills was till 21/0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (b) Tirthamoyee Aluminium Products Vs. State of Tripura 2021 (50) G.S.T.L. 496 (Tripura), (c) Metropolis Logistics Pvt Ltd Vs. Additional Commissioner And 2 Others [2025(12) TMI 1300] [Allahabad)], (d) Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commr. of S.T., Hyderabad [2021 (50) G.S.T.L. 459 (Telangana)], (e) Assistant Commissioner (St) Vs. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. 2022 (57) G.S.T.L. 97 (S.C.). (6) The decisions relied by the appellant are as follows; (a) The Kerala High Court in the case of Sabitha Riyaz Vs. Union of India [2018 (19) G.S.T.L. 393] had held that the e-way bill showed the distance as 280 Kms, instead of 2800 Kms - one zero missing. This cannot be anything other than a typographical error, and a minor at that. An identical principle was stated by the Tripura High Court in the case of Tirthamoyee Aluminium Products Vs. State of Tripura [2021 (50) G.S.T.L. 496] and by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Metropolis Logistics Pvt Ltd Vs. Additional Commissioner And 2 Others [2025(12) TMI 1300]. (b) The Telangana High Court in the case of Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commr. of S.T., Hyderabad [2021 (50) G.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of the Calcutta High Court reported in 2023 (72) GSTL 15 (Ashok and Sons (HUF) Vs. Joint Commissioner, state tax, Siliguri), of the Supreme Court in the decisions reported in 2007 (8) TMI 344 (Guljag Industries Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, 2008 (231) ELT 3 (Union of India Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors) and 2024 (82) GSTL 226 (Vardan Associates Private Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax) and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. (8) The decisions relied upon by the respondent are as follows: (a) The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Gati Kinetsu Express private limited Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [2018 (15) GSTL 310] had held that penalty under Section 129 was justified as Part B of the e-way bill, furnishing all the details including the vehicle number, was not updated before the goods were loaded in the vehicle. (b) The Calcutta High Court in the decision reported in 2023 (72) GSTL 15 (Ashok and sons (HUF) Vs. Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Siliguri), while considering the issue of an expired e-way bill, held that the respondent authority was lawfully permitted to impose a penalty under Section 129 as the goods were found to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 129 of the Act is justified, for the reason that the period of the e-way bill had expired and the validity was not extended as per Rule 138 of the CGST Rules" (10) It is an undisputed fact that the consignment was accompanied by lorry receipt, tax invoices, two e-way bills and a test certificate when it was intercepted on 24.06.2019 at 12.45 AM. The only defect was related to the expiry of the e-way bill. The e-way bills were raised on 20.06.2019 at 12.52 PM and expired on 21.06.2019. The reason offered for the expiry was due to a software used for generation of e-way bills that automatically calculated the distance and incorporated the validity period depending on the place of destination. The reason was rejected on the ground that it was the responsibility of the appellant to check whether the documents are in order before the movement of goods. The invoking of section 129 was justified on the sole ground of failure to extend the validity period of the e-way bills. (11) Section 129 of the Act, as it stood during the relevant period, empowered the proper officer to demand the applicable tax and penalty equal to 100% of the tax payable on the goods, in case of violati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. Ltd. [2022 (57) G.S.T.L. 97]. (c) The decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2007 (8) TMI 344 (Guljag Industries Vs. Commercial Tax Officer) cannot be applied in the present case as the decision was rendered in the context of a consignment accompanied by blank declaration forms. In the case before the Court, it was found that the consignment was accompanied by blank forms. The Court found that the modus operandi adopted by the assessee reflected the existence of mens rea. In the last page of the decision, the Court held that Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act was enacted to provide a remedy for loss of revenue and was not enacted to punish the vendor for committing an economic offence and, therefore, mens rea was not an essential ingredient for contravention of Section 78(2) of the Act. The present case is not one of blank/incomplete declaration Form but one of expired e-way bill. The authorities have not held that the movement of goods on the basis of expired e-way bill had led to loss of revenue. The circular of the Board itself makes a distinction between procedural violations and substantive violations. Hence, the decision of the Supreme Court cannot be....