Invoice-Numbering and Part-B Lapses in Genuine Transactions Do Not Attract Section 129 Penalty: GSTAT Agra

In two departmental appeals, the GST Appellate Tribunal’s Agra Bench upheld the quashing of detention penalties where documents and goods matched and no intention to evade tax was shown.

The GST Appellate Tribunal, Agra, has held that non-consecutive invoice numbering and failure to update Part-B of an e-way bill are technical lapses that do not attract penalty under Section 129(3) of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017, where the transaction is genuine and no intention to evade tax is shown. The Bench of Ajeet Singh, Member (Judicial), and Vivek Kumar, Member (Technical), dismissed two departmental appeals [Ram Kumar Yadav v. Saroj Anand Khattar (Meera Trading Company), 2026-juristway.com-3242-GSTAT(Agra)-GST; Commissioner State Tax U.P v. Govindam Flavours, 2026-juristway.com-3244-GSTAT(Agra)-GST].

Meera Trading Company. In an order written by Ajeet Singh, the Bench considered arecanuts moving from Nagpur to Mathura on 12 Nov 2024 with a valid invoice, e-way bill and consignment note. A penalty of ₹6,65,028 had been imposed only because invoices were not numbered consecutively as required by Rule 46(b). Calling it a bona fide clerical error in a revenue-neutral transaction, the Bench held that the Department could at most have proceeded under Section 125. It added that UP authorities had no jurisdiction to adjudicate a Rule 46(b) violation by a supplier registered in Maharashtra.

Govindam Flavours. In an order written by Vivek Kumar, the Bench considered goods moving from Kanpur to Mumbai with a valid e-invoice and Part-A, but no Part-B, and a penalty of ₹5,12,676. It first rejected the taxpayer’s objection that the appeal fell below the monetary limit in the Commissioner’s circular of 5 Jul 2024, since clause 4(vi) permits appeals on the Commissioner’s opinion. Following M/S Satyam Traders Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ Tax No. 1095 of 2025) and M/s Citykart Retail Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner Commercial Tax (Writ C No. 22285 of 2019), it held that intent to evade is essential and that “mere recitation of contravention is insufficient”.

In both cases, the orders of the first appellate authorities quashing the penalties were upheld and the departmental appeals dismissed. In each, the Bench found that the goods matched the accompanying documents and the transaction was reflected in the taxpayer’s records or on the portal.

2026-juristway.com-3242-GSTAT(Agra)-GST | 2026-juristway.com-3244-GSTAT(Agra)-GST