The Tribunal held that in a bill-to-ship-to transaction, the consignee who causes the movement of goods is entitled to generate the e-way bill under Rule 138(2), and detention merely because the actual seller did not generate the invoice and EWB is not sustainable.
The GSTAT Raipur Bench has allowed an appeal by a steel manufacturer, setting aside the penalty of Rs. 6,41,540 imposed under Section 129(1)(a) of the GST Act in respect of MS TMT Bars intercepted during transport, holding that the transaction was a genuine bill-to-ship-to arrangement and the detention was not sustainable [Nalwa Steel and Power Limited v. Commissioner State Tax, Chhattisgarh].
The Division Bench of Pradeep Kumar Vyas (Judicial Member) and Chandra Bhushan Singh (Technical Member) examined the three-party transaction under Section 10(1)(b) of the IGST Act: the appellant as consignor/supplier billed to Jindal Steel and Power Ltd (intermediate person), which in turn supplied to Gupta and Sons (consignee/ship-to party). All four tax invoices were e-invoices generated on 09.11.2024, before the vehicle was intercepted on 10.11.2024.
The sole ground for detention was that the actual seller had not generated the tax invoice and e-way bill. The Tribunal held this ground unsustainable. Under Rule 138(2) of the CGST Rules, the consignor or consignee who causes the movement of goods is required to generate the e-way bill. Since Gupta and Sons was the party arranging transportation, it was entitled to generate and had in fact generated the e-way bills on 10.11.2024 at 09:57 AM and 10:00 AM — before the interception at 2:58 PM.
The Tribunal also noted that the factory-gate records showed the vehicle departed at 2:20 PM and was intercepted 15-20 km away at 2:58 PM, and that the commercial practice of an intermediary retaining the original supplier's invoice and issuing its own to the ultimate recipient does not, by itself, constitute a contravention of GST law.
2026-juristway.com-2972-GSTAT(Raipur)-GST | GSTAT, Raipur | APL/26/RPR/2026 | 13.10.2026
