Penalty confirmed as loading point of the goods was different as declared in E- Way Bill

Penalty confirmed as loading point of the goods loaded in vehicle was different as declared in E- Way Bill which is confirmed by driver and GPS location

In a recent judgment, Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand confirmed penalty as loading point of the goods loaded in vehicle was different as declared in E- Way Bill which is confirmed by the statement of the driver and GPS location resulting violation of Rule 138 of CGST Rules, 2017.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4867 (2025) (11) abcaus.in HC

In the instant case the assessee/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 ground taken by the assessee was that the said 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 goods related to the petitioner which were in transit was inspected under section 68(3) and section 129(1) of the Act read with State Act and the discrepancy was noticed 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.

The case of the Department was that as per intelligence, the modus operandi of the petitioner was to purchase the scrap from local/un-registered persons and store the same at several 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 as most of the suppliers of the petitioner was suspended/cancelled and also registered in other items.

The Petitioner contended 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. 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 Transporter with weighment slip.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that there was 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 had been found to be different from the one declared in the EWay Bill and the same had 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 was different as per the GPS location shared by the transporter/driver which was different from the place of dispatch mentioned in E-Way Bill.

The Hon’ble High Court further noted that as per the GPS location, the said vehicle also stayed about six hours at a place other than declared loading place which confirmed the goods were loaded at a location which was different as per E-Way Bill resulting in violation of Rule 138 of GST Rules, 2017.

The Hon’ble High Court also observed that 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. Though, the petitioner even by election could not be treated to have waived his right or acquiescenced to the demand by paying the amount in question, but the adjudicating authority had enough evidences and material adverse to the petitioner.

The Hon’ble High Court held the instant petition was clearly an afterthought besides being devoid of any merit.  Accordingly, the same was dismissed, in limine.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• When testator was illiterate, burden was on propounder of Will to satisfy judicial conscience of Court
• Which ITRS are relevant for assessing income of deceased person under MV Act 1988
• CBDT condones delay in filing Form No. 10AB
• SC express concern over AI generated judgments/paragraphs escaping scrutiny by NCLT/NCLAT
• ICAI to take disciplinary action for quoting very low & incommensurate fee by Chartered Accountants