The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench, has allowed an appeal and set aside a penalty imposed under Section 129, holding that when goods belonging to a principal are returned by the job worker after completion of job work, the value of the goods on which job work has been undertaken is not includable in the consignment value to be declared in the e-way bill — the consignment value is restricted to the transaction value of the job work charges under Section 15(1) read with Explanation 2 to Rule 138. The ruling by Vice-President Subramanya Rayaprol and Member (Technical) Ramamoorthi Sriram in APL/27/TVP/2026 (M/s Metalloids India, decided 17.09.2026) comprehensively rejected the Revenue’s argument that 99.7% of the physical value was ‘undocumented’.
The appellant’s principal had sent aluminium colour coated coils (Rs. 6,96,900) to M/s Roofstyle Industries for job work. The return movement was accompanied by the job worker’s tax invoice (Rs. 1,841 including GST on job work charges), the original delivery challan, the return e-way bill, and the receipt note. The SGST authorities intercepted the vehicle and imposed penalty on the ground that the e-way bill did not reflect the full material value. The Tribunal found that the SCN itself was based on factually inaccurate allegations — controverted by the department’s own documents in Form GST MOV-01 and MOV-04 — and that the OIO introduced new grounds not stated in the SCN, violating natural justice. On the substantive question, since the transaction value under Section 15(1) was Rs. 1,841 and the consignment value per Explanation 2 to Rule 138 was also Rs. 1,841, this was below the Rs. 50,000 threshold for mandatory e-way bill generation — making the entire proceedings void ab initio.
- 2026-juristway.com-2547-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST | GSTAT Thiruvananthapuram Bench | APL/27/TVP/2026 | 17.09.2026