GST Rulings

Penalty quantum for E-Way Bill violation

Applicability of Section 129

Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 deals with detention and seizure of goods and conveyance in transit. It is applicable if the following activities are performed in contravention of the Act or the rules made thereunder:

  1. transportation of goods; or
  2. storage of goods while in transit.

Quantum of Penalty

With effect from 01.01.2022, penalty under Section 129 ibid is as follows:

  • where the owner of the goods agrees to pays the penalty:
    • 200% of tax payable on such goods;
    • 2% of value of such goods (or) ₹ 50,000, whichever is less (in case of exempt goods).
  • where the owner of the goods does not agree to pays the penalty:
    • 50% of value of such goods (or) 200% of tax payable on such goods, whichever is higher;
    • 5% of value of such goods (or) ₹ 50,000, whichever is less (in case of exempt goods).

Mens rea - Required or not?

It is important to note that Section 129 ibid does not impose the existence of mens rea, viz., intent to evade tax, as a condition to impose penalty. This has been watered-down, to an extent, with the issue of Circular No.64/38/2018-GST dated 14.09.2018, which specifies minimum penalty for minor offences. Yet, roving squad officers have been imposing the maximum penalty for any violation under Section 129 ibid. Therefore, the judiciary has come to the rescue of innocent taxpayers from the clutches of Section 129 ibid.

Does non-updation of replacement vehicle no. in EWB warrant maximum penalty?

[Order of the High Court of Gujarat dated June 14, 2024 from R/Special Civil Application No. 1487 of 2020 in Landmark Cars Private Limited v. Union of India]

The petitioner had moved goods under the cover of an E-Way Bill (EWB). The conveyance broke down and a replacement conveyance was arranged. However, Part-B of the E-Way Bill was not updated. The goods were consequently detained and maximum penalty was imposed.

It was held that the discrepancy was minor as per Circular No.64 specified above since there was no intent to evade taxes.

Srinivasan V, Advocate

Recent Posts

60 days time limit to pass GST refund order is mandatory: Calcutta HC

Decision / Observations [Order of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta, dated 30.07.2025, in M.A.T.…

3 months ago

CA certificate for receipt of net forex acceptable in lieu of FIRCs: Gujarat HC

Facts The Petitioner, engaged in export of services, had claimed refund of unutilized GST Input…

4 months ago

Why right to cross-examination is not unfettered: Delhi HC

[Order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, dated 09.04.2025, in W.P. (C) No. 4576…

6 months ago

EWB detention proceedings conclude on penalty payment, no need to issue order: Orissa HC

Orissa HC judgment dt. 18.02.2025 in W.P.(C) No. 3055 of 2025 Goods were detained &…

8 months ago

Refund limitation for GST wrongly paid

GST was paid but later clarified as not payable by a beneficial circular. In Messrs…

9 months ago

GST | Should 3 months be construed as 90 days for limitation?

Order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court [dated 05.02.2025, in Cotton Corporation of India vs.…

9 months ago