The GSTAT Ghaziabad Bench has delivered a comprehensive 45-paragraph ruling allowing an appeal and setting aside a Section 129 penalty of Rs. 32,380, holding that where goods are transported within the same State for less than 50 km from the consignor’s place of business to the transporter’s premises for further transportation, the third proviso to Rule 138(3) expressly permits vehicle details in Part B to remain unfilled — and an omission expressly permitted by the Rules cannot be treated as a breach of those Rules. The ruling by Members Sanjay Kumar Chandhariyavi (JM) and Sungita Sharma (TM) in APL/D22/GZB/2026 (M/s Jubilant Agri and Consumer Products Ltd., decided 01.10.2026) provides the most detailed GSTAT analysis to date of the interplay between the third proviso to Rule 138(3), Explanation 2 to Rule 138(3), Section 129, Section 126 and the Supreme Court’s decisions on mens rea in civil fiscal penalties.
The Tribunal distinguished the third proviso (initial journey to transporter’s premises) from the proviso to Rule 138(5) (final journey from transporter to consignee), holding that they operate in different stages and must be kept separate. On mens rea, the Tribunal examined the entire Supreme Court jurisprudence from Nathulal (1966) through Hindustan Steel (1969), Chairman SEBI v. Shriram Mutual Fund (2006), Guljag Industries (2007), Dharamendra Textile (2008) and Rajasthan Spinning (2009), holding that two separate questions must be answered: was a statutory obligation breached, and if so, does the provision require a mental element? Even a strict civil penalty cannot be imposed for conduct expressly permitted by the governing Rule. The Tribunal also relied on CBIC Circular 64/38/2018-GST and the Allahabad HC’s Roli Enterprises and RS Industrial Solutions.
- 2026-juristway.com-2790-GSTAT(Ghaziabad)-GST | GSTAT Ghaziabad Bench | APL/D22/GZB/2026 | 01.10.2026