Expired or Incomplete E-Way Bill Without Valid Reason Attracts Section 129 Penalty: GSTAT Lucknow, Agra

In two cases, the GST Appellate Tribunal’s Lucknow and Agra Benches upheld penalties for moving goods on expired or Part-B-less e-way bills, rejecting transporter-error and breakdown explanations without contemporaneous proof.

Two Benches of the GST Appellate Tribunal have held that transporting goods with an expired e-way bill or without Part-B updated is a substantive breach attracting penalty under Section 129(3) of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017, where no valid reason is proved. The Lucknow Bench allowed a departmental appeal and the Agra Bench dismissed a taxpayer’s appeal [Ajendra Kumar Tripathi v. Shivam Colour Traders, 2026-juristway.com-3239-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST; MG Traders v. Ruby Singh, Additional Commissioner Grade-2, Appeal-2 Agra & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3250-GSTAT(Agra)-GST].

Shivam Colour Traders. Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Member (Judicial), and Arvind Kumar, Member (Technical), dealt with paint moving from Kanpur to Raebareli on 19 Jul 2023 under three invoices, two with Part-B not updated and one with an e-way bill that expired on 17 Jul 2023. The first appellate authority had quashed the ₹2,70,444 penalty, citing matching goods and the absence of intent. The Bench held that the consignor’s responsibility is non-delegable and “A statutory penalty cannot be bypassed by shifting the blame onto a chosen agent/transporter.” It restored the penalty, noting that later updating or GSTR‑1 reporting could not cure the default at interception.

MG Traders. Ajeet Singh, Member (Judicial), who wrote the order, and Vivek Kumar, Member (Technical), considered groundnut kernels moving from Jhansi to Alwar on an e-way bill that had expired when the truck was stopped on 5 May 2022. The breakdown plea failed because repair slips surfaced only in adjudication and the driver had not mentioned any breakdown at interception. Relying on Union of India vs Dharmendra textile processors (2008), the Bench held that the goods moved on an “expired e-way bill which is tantamount of no e-way bill”, and upheld the penalty of about ₹1.78 lakh.

In both cases, the Benches confirmed the penalties imposed under Section 129(3) by the proper officers. The Lucknow order restored the original adjudication order dated 24 Jul 2023, while the Agra order upheld the concurrent findings of the adjudicating and first appellate authorities.

2026-juristway.com-3239-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST | 2026-juristway.com-3250-GSTAT(Agra)-GST