Summary: The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Varanasi Bench, in Bitchem Asphalt Technologies Limited v. Prakash Yadav, Joint Commissioner (IT), State Tax, held that merely taking a longer route while transporting goods cannot, by itself, justify a penalty under Section 129 of the GST law where the goods are accompanied by valid documents and no actual statutory contravention is established. Bitchem was transporting 29 metric tonnes of Tailor-Made Cold Binder in 145 drums when its vehicle was intercepted at Saiyyadraja, Uttar Pradesh, about 150 km away from the expected destination. The department suspected possible diversion of the goods because the vehicle had entered Uttar Pradesh, whereas the taxpayer explained that the longer route was chosen to avoid difficult terrain for a heavily loaded commercial vehicle. A penalty of ₹6,48,366 was imposed and upheld in first appeal, but GSTAT set aside the orders. The Tribunal observed that GST law does not require a transporter to declare or necessarily follow a particular route and that route deviation, without supporting evidence of a GST violation or intended alternative delivery, was insufficient to sustain the penalty. The ruling, however, should not be treated as establishing that route information is always irrelevant or that intention to evade tax must separately be proved in every Section 129 proceeding. Its practical significance is narrower: where the department’s case rests only on an unusual or longer route and the invoice, e-way bill, goods, quantity and declared destination are otherwise in order, the authorities must identify an actual contravention rather than presume tax evasion merely from the route taken.
What the GSTAT’s Bitchem Asphalt Technologies ruling means for goods in transit
A truck carrying properly documented goods does not become liable to a Section 129 penalty simply because its driver chooses a longer road. That is the practical point emerging from the Varanasi Bench of the GST Appellate Tribunal in Bitchem Asphalt Technologies Limited v. Prakash Yadav, Joint Commissioner (IT), State Tax, Appeal No. APL/18/VRN/2026, decided on 22 September 2026. The ruling is particularly useful where the department’s objection is to the route taken, rather than to the goods or their accompanying documents.
The journey under scrutiny
Bitchem was transporting 29 metric tonnes of Tailor-Made Cold Binder in 145 drums. The vehicle was intercepted at Saiyyadraja in Uttar Pradesh. According to the show-cause notice, it was about 150 km away from the expected destination and had entered Uttar Pradesh when, in the officer’s view, there was no need to do so. The officer suspected that the goods might instead be delivered to someone in Uttar Pradesh.
The taxpayer offered an ordinary transport explanation: the shorter route involved difficult terrain, and a heavily loaded commercial vehicle had taken the longer road for safety. The officer did not accept it and imposed a penalty of ₹6,48,366. Bitchem paid under protest to obtain release of the goods and vehicle, but continued its challenge. The first appeal failed; the GSTAT allowed the subsequent appeal and set aside the orders.
The Tribunal’s central observation was that, unlike the route-based requirements familiar under some earlier VAT practices, the GST Act and Rules do not require the transporter to declare a particular route in the documents used to move goods. In the circumstances before it, taking a longer route to avoid difficult terrain could not, without supporting evidence, justify imagining an intention to evade tax. The Tribunal noted that the goods travelled with valid documents and that the department had not established the suspected alternative delivery.
What Section 129 requires
Section 129 concerns detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit where goods are transported or stored in contravention of the GST Act or Rules. Its text does not prescribe the shortest route between dispatch and delivery points. Before a penalty is determined, the person concerned must also be given an opportunity of being heard.
That distinction between an unusual fact and a legal contravention is the heart of this case. A vehicle’s location may give an officer a reason to ask questions. It does not, on its own, answer them. A driver may avoid a narrow road, a difficult climb or another transport obstacle. If the invoice, e-way bill, goods, quantity and destination are otherwise in order, the officer must identify evidence of an actual GST violation rather than treat the map’s shortest line as a statutory command.
The ruling should not be overstated. It is not a general proposition that intention to evade tax must be separately proved in every Section 129 case, irrespective of the contravention alleged. Nor does it mean that route information can never be evidence. Its narrower and stronger proposition is this: route deviation alone, on the facts of this case, was insufficient to sustain the penalty.
Why it matters in practice
Goods move according to commercial and road realities, not merely the distance displayed on a map. A route objection is therefore best answered with a clear account of the particular journey—not just a bare assertion that “GST permits any route.”
A taxpayer or professional facing a similar notice should first check what the officer actually alleges. Is the objection confined to distance and route? Or does the notice also allege an expired e-way bill, a different delivery point, a mismatch in goods or quantity, or incorrect dispatch particulars? Bitchem is most directly applicable to the first situation. Where there is an additional, evidenced discrepancy, that discrepancy needs its own factual and legal reply; the route ruling will not dispose of it automatically.
The useful contemporaneous material will depend on the journey: the driver’s explanation, transport instructions, toll and GPS records, road restrictions, vehicle load, and communications with the consignor or recipient. Above all, reconcile those records with the invoice and e-way bill before putting an explanation on record. A convincing account of why this vehicle took this route on this day is more valuable than a general statement about logistics.
There is an equally important lesson for adjudication. If an officer believes the goods were meant for an undeclared recipient, the order should explain the evidence for that belief. Suspicion generated by a detour cannot take the place of a finding that the declared transaction or transport documents were false. In Bitchem, the suspected diversion was not established, and the Tribunal set aside the penalty.
The practical takeaway
Bitchem gives taxpayers a focused answer to route-only detention cases: show the documents, explain the journey, and ask the officer to identify the actual statutory contravention. It does not grant a licence to carry goods on inaccurate documents, nor does it prevent officers from investigating a genuinely suspicious movement. It does insist that the penalty rest on evidence and the law—not on the assumption that a longer road must lead to tax evasion.
Case note: Bitchem Asphalt Technologies Limited v. Prakash Yadav, Joint Commissioner (IT), State Tax, GSTAT Varanasi Bench, Appeal No. APL/18/VRN/2026, order dated 22 September 2026; reported as 2026 TAXSCAN (GSTAT) 185. The case details and quoted holding above are drawn from the published report. Before publication, the editor should check the signed order for the exact wording and any further factual qualifications.
