E-Way Bill Dilemma: Can You Be Penalized for Internal Branch & Job Site Transfers Under GST?
Moving goods around is an everyday reality for growing businesses. Whether it is shifting inventory to a different branch or transferring raw materials to a job site within the same state, internal logistics are always buzzing. But when it comes to GST compliance, this simple internal movement often raises a big question: Do we need an e-way bill for such transfers, and what happens if it is not in place?
As per Rule 138 of the CGST Rules, 2017, an e-way bill is required even for the movement of goods for reasons “other than by way of supply.” So, from a literal interpretation of the law, it is required. But what if the same is not generated?
First of all, in this case, there is no sale taking place. There is no buyer, no consideration exchanging hands, and no transfer of ownership. It is purely an internal movement of the company’s own goods. Therefore, a practical challenge arises in levying penalties for such non-compliances.
The Statutory Framework: Section 129
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 provides for detention, seizure, and penalty in cases where there is a contravention of the provisions of the Act or Rules while goods are in transit. The provision states:
“(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any person transports any goods or stores any goods while they are in transit in contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, all such goods and conveyance used as a means of transport for carrying the said goods and documents relating to such goods and conveyance shall be liable to detention or seizure and after detention or seizure, shall be released,—
(a) on payment of penalty equal to two hundred per cent. of the tax payable on such goods and, in case of exempted goods, on payment of an amount equal to two per cent. of the value of goods or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less, where the owner of the goods comes forward for payment of such penalty;”
Hence, if a penalty is to be levied under Section 129(1)(a) of the Act, the bare act prescribes penalties for two completely distinct categories: Taxable Goods and Exempted Goods.
(1) For taxable goods, it explicitly states that the penalty shall be equal to “two hundred per cent of the tax payable on such goods.”
But when applying this mathematical formula to such transfers, the penal framework encounters a significant logical hurdle:
- No Supply = No Tax Liability: To have a “tax payable” under the GST framework, a transaction must first qualify as a “supply” under Section 7 of the Act.
- The Zero Tax Phenomenon: An internal movement of goods to your own branch or job site completely lacks the basic elements of a supply. Since it is not a supply, there is no statutory obligation to pay tax on this specific movement. Therefore, the “tax payable” is logically Nil.
- The Computational Breakdown: If the tax payable is zero, the mathematical computation prescribed in Section 129(1)(a) fails i.e., (200% of ₹0 = ₹0).
The same has been held by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Marcowagon Retail (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India (Special Civil Application Nos. 2234 and 2236 of 2025, order dated 24/04/2025). The Hon’ble High Court noted that even when there is a procedural contravention of Rule 138, the computation of penalty would ultimately fail in the absence of any tax actually payable by the taxpayer.
(2) The Taxable vs. Exempt Mismatch
On the other side of the provision, the GST Act prescribes a completely separate penalty calculation for exempted goods (which is 2% of the value of goods or ₹25,000, whichever is less).
However, if the goods being moved are inherently taxable in nature, authorities cannot simply borrow or substitute the penalty formula meant for exempted goods just because the primary computation mechanism for taxable goods resulted in a zero penalty. The law does not permit blending distinct statutory categories to force a penal outcome.
Conclusion
While generating an e-way bill for internal movements remains a best compliance practice to ensure smooth transit and respect the literal text of Rule 138, the framework for levying penalties on these movements faces a mathematical and logical hurdle.
******
Disclaimer: This article is written strictly for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional, legal, or tax advice. The views expressed are a personal interpretation of current GST laws and judicial precedents.
Author Bio
