GSTAT Upholds ₹39.74 Lakh Penalty on Transporter After 23 Garment Categories Found Without Matching Invoices or E-Way Bills

A vehicle was intercepted by the Mobile Squad, Lucknow, on 30 April 2026. The vehicle carried 23 categories of garments, but the invoices and bilty documents with the driver related to different goods; the goods were not accompanied by matching invoices or e-way bills.

The appellant said the driver had mistakenly carried documents intended for another vehicle and later submitted 22–24 invoices from registered suppliers to establish the goods’ ownership and genuineness.

The department rejected that explanation and imposed a penalty of ₹39,74,712 under Section 129(3) of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017. The First Appellate Authority upheld the penalty, and the appellant appealed to the Tribunal under Section 112(1).

The materials identify the appellant in the case heading as Bahadur Singh but describe the appealing entity in the order summary as M/s Badri Vishal Goods Carriers; the supplied text does not resolve this discrepancy.

The Tribunal applied Section 68 read with Rule 138A, which requires prescribed documents to accompany goods in movement, and Section 129(3), under which a penalty may be imposed in connection with the movement of goods in contravention of the Act or Rules.

The appeal was brought under Section 112(1). The order summary refers generally to judicial precedents cited by the appellant but does not identify them; no specific precedent or additional legal test can therefore be stated from the supplied material.

The Tribunal treated the absence of documents matching the goods at the time of interception as a breach of Section 68 read with Rule 138A.

It rejected the explanation that the driver had carried another vehicle’s documents because the appellant had not produced corroborative evidence of the alleged exchange.

It also held that invoices submitted after detention, without supporting e-way bills, did not cure the original contravention or establish genuine ownership at the time of interception. On that basis, the Tribunal declined to disturb the penalty upheld by the First Appellate Authority.

The order was not a remand.