The GSTAT Agra Bench has recorded a split decision in a Revenue appeal where goods were being transported with an e-way bill mentioning an entirely different vehicle number (DL-01LAL-7401) from the actual vehicle (DL-01MB-3570), with the Judicial Member allowing Revenue’s appeal and the Technical Member dismissing it. The point of difference — whether an e-way bill reflecting an entirely different vehicle number constitutes a deliberate violation with intent to evade tax — has been referred to the Vice President, GSTAT UP for nomination of a third member. The order in APL/112/AGR/2026 (Revenue v. Tata Play Limited, decided 10.09.2026) by Members Ajeet Singh (JM) and Vivek Kumar (TM) represents the first reported split decision of the GSTAT on a Section 129 question.
The JM held that filling up Part-B of the e-way bill with an entirely different vehicle number (not merely a one-or-two-digit variation) constituted a deliberate wrong declaration creating a rebuttable presumption of tax evasion per the Allahabad HC’s BM Computers, and that the respondent failed to rebut this presumption. The TM held that all other documents were valid, no discrepancy in goods was found, the correct vehicle number appeared in the e-invoice, the wrong vehicle number was a bona fide typographical error corrected within hours, and mens rea/intention to evade is sine qua non for Section 129 per the SC’s Satyam Shivam Papers and the jurisdictional Allahabad HC’s consistent line in Hindustan Herbal Cosmetics, Satyam Traders and others.
- 2026-juristway.com-2705-GSTAT(Agra)-GST | GSTAT Agra Bench | APL/112/AGR/2026 | 10.09.2026
