The GSTAT Varanasi Bench has dismissed an appeal and upheld a Section 129 penalty, holding that a second e-way bill generated three days after the expiry of the original e-way bill — by inserting ‘0’ before the original invoice number to bypass the system’s restriction on duplicate generation — was the product of fraud and deception practised on behalf of the appellant with intent to evade tax. The ruling by Member (Judicial) Narendra Bahadur Yadav and Member (Technical) Ananjai Kumar Rai in APL/6/VRN/2026 (Reliable Paints, decided 21.09.2026) applied the civil standard of preponderance of probabilities, relying on the Supreme Court’s principles in Gulabchand v. Kudilal (5-judge Bench) and Standard Chartered Bank v. Andhra Bank.
The vehicle was supposed to travel 1,727 km from Manjusar (Gujarat) to Bihta (Bihar) within the e-way bill validity ending 19.08.2024, but the appellant claimed the vehicle broke down in Orai (UP) after covering only 950 km in over 9 days. The second e-way bill showed loading from Kachora Ghat, Etawah (not Orai), and the vehicle then covered over 500 km to Ballia within 24 hours. The Tribunal found the breakdown story improbable, noted the absence of any repair evidence or credible explanation for the 9-day delay, and drew adverse inference from the appellant’s failure to produce the best evidence. The case was treated as distinct from routine e-way bill expiry cases where no mens rea exists.
- 2026-juristway.com-2607-GSTAT(Varanasi)-GST | GSTAT Varanasi Bench | APL/6/VRN/2026 | 21.09.2026