Mentioning different place of loading of goods in the e-way bill generated from the common portal held violation of section 129 of CGST Act, 2017.
In a recent judgment, Hon’ble High Court has held that mentioning different place of loading of goods in the e-way bill generated from the common portal was violation of section 129 of CGST Act, 2017.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4753 (2025) (09) abcaus.in HC
In the instant case the Petitioner had filed a Writ Petition praying for quashing and setting aside the order passed in GST MOV-09 under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the Act”), whereby penalty had been levied.
The goods of the petitioner which were in transit in a vehicle was inspected under the provision of sub-section (3) of section 68 and sub section (1) of section 129 of CGST Act, 2017 read with relevant provisions of the Act.
Upon the inspection, it was observed that loading point of the goods loaded in said vehicle was found to be different as declared in E- Way Bill and as per the statement of the driver and GPS location shared by the transporter/driver resulting violation of Rule 138 of CGST Rules, 2017.
It was the case of the Department that the petitioner had declared several additional places of business and to be in primary business of Pet Bottle Scrap. The modus operandi of the petitioner was to purchase the pet bottle scrap from local/un-registered persons and store the same at additional places of business and thereafter to supply the pet bottle scrape to different purchaser from the said places of business. In the whole process of its business activities, there was no occasion to avail and utilize Input Tax Credit but the petitioner had been claiming huge input tax credit for payment of GST only to avoid the payment of GST.
Further, it was noticed that the petitioner had availed and utilized large amount of ITC in two Financial Years which did not appear to be proper and appeared to be fake/suspicious as most of the suppliers of the petitioner was suspended/cancelled and also registered in other items which are not related to the furtherance of business resulting in contravention of section 16 of the CGST Act, which required proper investigation.
Accordingly, penalty undersection 129(1)(a) and 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act was imposed for the violation of Rule 138 of the CGST Rules,2017.
However, in the reply filed by the petitioner it was averred that in order to invoke the provisions of Section 129(1)(a) or section 129(1)(b) there should be violation of Rule 138 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
It was contended that in the instant case there was no violation as the Petitioner before movement of its goods from its warehouse had generated the e-Invoice and E-Way Bill from the Common portal and the driver of the said vehicle was carrying with him both the e-Invoice and E-Way Bill along with the consignment Note issued by the Roadlines and weighment slip issued by a Weigh Bridge party.
It was submitted that the impugned order failed to prove any intent to evade on part of the Petitioner and further because all requisite documents for conveyance of the goods were admittedly available with the petitioner.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that no doubt the petitioner had generated the e-Invoice and E-Way Bill from the common portal but the loading point of the goods located in the said vehicle has been found to be different from the one declared in the E-Way Bill and the same has been corroborated by the statement of the driver as well as the GPS location shared by the transporter/driver. The actual loading point of the said goods has been found to be as per the GPS location shared by the transporter/driver which was different from the place of dispatch mentioned in E-Way Bill.
Further, as per the GPS location, the said vehicle also stayed about six hours at the alleged location which confirmed that the goods were loaded at this location which was different as per e-Way Bill resulting in violation of Rule 138 of GST Rules, 2017. Not only this, the petitioner did not assail the action of the respondents and paid the penalty amount and got the goods and conveyances released. Such deposit was made without any protest.
The Hon’ble High Court also observed that the petitioner even by election cannot be treated to have waived his right or acquiescenced to the demand by paying the amount in question, but given the fact that the adjudicating authority was adequately armed with material adverse to the petitioner, this left no doubt that the instant petition was clearly an afterthought besides being devoid of any merit.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed in limine.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- Mentioning different place of loading of goods in e-way bill is violation of section 129
- TDS on AMCs whether to be deducted u/s 194C or u/s 194J – ITAT to examine
- Fraud & deception not trade and business and money accumulated is proceeds of crime
- ICAI extends last date to submit MEF for FY 2025-26 to 10th October, 2025
- ICAI defers Guidance Note on Financial Statements of Non-Corporate entities/LLPs
