Post-Interception E-Way Bill Cannot Cure Section 129 Default: GSTAT Bengaluru

Heramb Enterprises Vs C Pushpalatha (GSTAT Bengaluru)

Summary: GSTAT Bengaluru dismissed the appeal of Heramb Enterprises and upheld the revisional order restoring tax and penalty under Section 129 of the KGST Act. The dispute arose when a vehicle carrying plywood was intercepted on 06.10.2020 while the goods were being unloaded at REC Flow Technology LLP, Belagavi. Although an invoice and e-way bill existed for transportation from Intercon Wood Industries, Kerala, to Heramb Enterprises at Yarmal Road, Vadgao, Belagavi, no invoice or e-way bill was available for the movement and unloading of the goods at REC Flow Technology LLP. The proper officer accordingly initiated proceedings under Section 129(1).

The first Appellate Authority had allowed the appeal, observing that the goods had reached the destination within the validity of the e-way bill, the relevant documents were subsequently generated and the parties were registered dealers. It reduced the penalty to Rs.500 each under the CGST and KGST Acts, relying upon Synergy Fertichem Private Limited Vs State of Gujarat. The Revisional Authority, however, found that the e-way bill relied upon by the Appellate Authority had been generated at 1.33 PM on 06.10.2020, after the interception, and treated its generation as an afterthought intended to cover the contravention.