The GSTAT Bengaluru Bench has set aside a Section 129 penalty of Rs. 5,44,588 (tax Rs. 2,72,294 + penalty Rs. 2,72,294) imposed on JSW Steel Coated Products Ltd. for transporting goods with an expired e-way bill, holding that where the consignment was accompanied by all valid documents (lorry receipt, tax invoices, e-way bills and test certificate), the only defect was the expiry of the e-way bill caused by a typographical error in the destination — the operator entered ‘Ramnagar’ (in Nagpur district, Maharashtra, 83 km) instead of ‘Ramanagara’ (in Karnataka, the actual destination) — and no intention to evade tax was established. The ruling by Member (Technical) Sudha Koka and Member (Judicial) Srikanth Venkatraman in APL/190/BUR/2026 (decided 28.09.2026) follows the Supreme Court’s Satyam Shivam Papers (SLP dismissed), the Kerala HC’s Sabitha Riyaz and the jurisdictional Karnataka HC’s BVM Trans Solutions.
The Tribunal systematically rejected every decision relied upon by the Revenue: the MP HC’s Gati Kinetsu (not followed by jurisdictional Karnataka HC in BVM Trans Solutions); the Calcutta HC’s Ashok and Sons (not applicable in light of Satyam Shivam Papers as confirmed by SC); the SC’s Guljag Industries (concerned blank declaration forms, not expired e-way bills); the SC’s Dharamendra Textiles (concerned mandatory penalty under Central Excise Act S.11AC); and the SC’s Vardan Associates (Article 142 order, expressly not a binding precedent). The Tribunal relied on the Gujarat HC’s Synergy Fertichem which held that the Department itself distinguishes between serious/substantive violations and minor/procedural ones, and that the Board’s Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST prescribes only Rs. 500/1,000 penalty under Section 125 for minor procedural infractions.
- 2026-juristway.com-2673-GSTAT(Bengaluru)-GST | GSTAT Bengaluru Bench | APL/190/BUR/2026 | 28.09.2026