In four appeals, the Tribunals held that an expired or inconsistent e-way bill is a substantive contravention rather than a minor discrepancy, and that explanations must be backed by contemporaneous evidence.
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal benches at Raipur and Agra have dismissed four transport-related appeals and upheld penalties under Section 129 [Asat Logistics Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of State Tax (two appeals)], [Akash Sales Corporation v. Commissioner of State Tax] and [Vijay Pal Singh v. Joint Commissioner (IT), State Tax, Lucknow].
In the Asat Logistics appeals, the Raipur Bench of Pradeep Kumar Vyas (Judicial Member) and Chandra Bhushan Singh (Technical Member) found that vehicles on a 1,486-km route were intercepted six days after the e-way bills expired, with no explanation for not extending them. Drawing an adverse inference for withheld evidence, it held that Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST helps only where a valid e-way bill accompanies the goods.
In Akash Sales Corporation, the same Bench found that the first e-way bill still showed Bhilai as destination though the goods were said to be diverted to Raipur, the second e-way bill had expired and declared a fresh movement from a place the goods never reached, and the interception point matched neither route. These were substantive contraventions; the Rs. 4.40 lakh paid through DRC-03 was to be credited against the liability.
In the Agra appeal, the Bench of Ajeet Singh (Judicial Member) and Vivek Kumar (Technical Member) found a large quantity of garments and decoration material with no invoice, bilty or e-way bill, and held that the claim of transit to another State could not succeed without reliable evidence establishing that destination.
2026-juristway.com-2997, 3002 & 2998-GSTAT(Raipur)-GST & 2026-juristway.com-2999-GSTAT(Agra)-GST | GSTAT, Raipur & Agra | 13.10.2026
