GSTAT Agra Splits Over ₹10.10 Lakh Penalty On Tata Play For Wrong Vehicle Number, Refers Matter To VP
The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Agra, on 10 September differed on whether mentioning an entirely different vehicle number in an e-way bill can attract penalty under Section 129 of the CGST/UPGST Act.
A Split Bench of Judicial Member Ajeet Singh and Technical Member Vivek Kumar was hearing an appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against an order deleting a Rs. 10,10,186 penalty imposed on Tata Play Limited after its vehicle was intercepted while transporting goods from Delhi to Lucknow.
Judicial Member Ajeet Singh held that the CBIC circular providing for waiver of penalties for minor errors in vehicle numbers could not apply where an entirely different registration number was entered in Part B of the e-way bill. He held:
“The circular is applicable only in cases where there is an error in one or two digits/characters of the vehicle number.”
The consignment was intercepted on 25 March 2025 while being transported in vehicle DL-01MB-3570. The e-way bill, however, mentioned vehicle number DL-01LAL-7401. The adjudicating officer treated the discrepancy as a violation of the e-way bill requirements and imposed the penalty.
Singh observed that the CBIC circular covered only an “error in one or two digits/characters of the vehicle number” and could not be extended to a case where an entirely different vehicle number had been entered.
Technical Member Vivek Kumar took a contrary view. He found that the accompanying documents did not disclose any discrepancy in the goods, quantity, value or destination and held that the wrong vehicle number was a bona fide mistake. He further observed that proceedings under Section 129 require an underlying intention to evade tax.
With the Members differing on whether the vehicle-number mismatch constituted a violation attracting penalty under Section 129, the matter has been referred to the Vice President of GSTAT, Uttar Pradesh, for nomination of another Member to decide the point of difference.
For the Appellants: Mukesh Kumar, Authorized Representative
For the Respondents: Prabhat Kumar, Advocate