Rubber Latex From Agriculturist Needs No E-Way Bill; Wrong GSTIN Condoned: GSTAT Thiruvananthapuram

The GST Appellate Tribunal’s Thiruvananthapuram Bench set aside a detention penalty, holding that Kerala’s Notification No. 3/2018-State Tax covered latex moved from a grower under a delivery challan despite a mistaken GSTIN.

The GST Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, has held that rubber latex moved from an agriculturist’s estate to a registered dealer under a delivery challan is exempt from the e-way bill requirement under Notification No. 3/2018-State Tax dated 14 May 2018, and that a wrong GSTIN printed on the challan is a condonable clerical error. The Bench of Subramanya Rayaprol, Vice-President, who wrote the order, and Ramamoorthi Sriram, Member (Technical), set aside the penalty [Kurian Abraham Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Keralam State GST, 2026-juristway.com-3222-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST].

On 4 Jan 2022, a vehicle carrying 7,560 kg of natural rubber latex valued at ₹3,85,560 to the appellant was intercepted without an e-way bill. The delivery challan, prepared by the appellant on the supplier’s behalf, carried the GSTIN of Anku Rubbers, a registered dealer. According to the Department, the appellant paid the proposed penalty of ₹38,556 the same day, and the first appeal failed.

The Department argued that the challan showed a dealer-to-dealer transaction above ₹50,000, that the agriculturist plea was an afterthought, and that payment without demur amounted to acceptance under Section 129(5). It also contended that the penalty was below the ₹50,000 limit in Section 112(2).

The Bench relied on an affidavit of the supplier, Arun Scaria, stating that he cultivated rubber on about 51.13 acres of leased plantation, was not registered, and had asked the appellant to prepare the challan for him. Anku Rubbers, by its own affidavit, denied supplying any goods to the appellant.

Finding that the challan showed a rubber estate as the source and that a proper delivery challan accompanied the goods, the Bench held the conditions of the notification satisfied and the detention and penalty unsustainable. With nothing linking the parties to the GSTIN holder, it treated the GSTIN as “a genuine mistake” and condoned it, while advising the appellant to avoid such errors. The penalties under the order-in-appeal dated 20 Sep 2022 were set aside and the appeals allowed with consequential relief.

2026-juristway.com-3222-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST