The Thiruvananthapuram Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has said that a wrong GSTIN cited in a delivery challan because of a clerical error cannot attract a penalty if no proof establishes a link between the taxpayer, supplier, or transporter and the GSTIN holder.
A Bench including Vice-President Subramanya Rayaprol and Technical Member Ramamoorthi Sriram permitted the appeal submitted by Kurian Abraham Pvt. Ltd. and quashed the penalty of Rs 38,556 levied u/s 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST)/Kerala Goods and Services Tax (KGST) Act. It stated:
“We find that the transporter was carrying a proper delivery challan required as per the Rules. Therefore, we find that the conditions of the said Notification No. 3/2018-State Tax were satisfied and the transport of such goods from the agriculturist’s premises to the appellant’s place was exempt from the requirement of the e-way bill irrespective of the value of the goods. Therefore, the detention and imposition of penalty against the appellant is unsustainable.”
This matter came to light when, on January 4, 2022, the department intercepted a vehicle transporting 7,560 kilograms of natural rubber latex, valued at Rs 3,85,560. The consignment was seized because it was being transported without an e-way bill.
Kurian Abraham stated that the rubber latex was supplied by Arun Scaria, a farmer who is not required to obtain GST registration. He cited Notification No. 3/2018-State Tax, dated May 14, 2018.
According to this notification, an e-way bill is not required when rubber latex is transported from a farmer’s premises to a registered dealer within the state of Kerala.
This exemption is not contingent upon the value of the goods; it merely requires that the prescribed documentation be present.
It was explained that the delivery challan had been prepared by a farmer, and the Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN) of another dealer, ‘Anku Rubbers’, had been entered into it by mistake.
The supplier also filed an affidavit confirming that he is a farmer and had supplied rubber latex directly to Kurian Abraham.
The Tribunal mentioned that Anku Rubbers had refused any link with the transaction. It did not discover any proof that links Kurian Abraham, the supplier, or the transporter to the GSTIN holder.
It was found that the conditions stipulated under Notification No. 3/2018-State Tax had been met, as the goods were transported from the farmer’s premises to the registered dealer’s premises using the prescribed delivery challan.
Therefore, regardless of the value of the goods, this transportation was exempt from the requirement of a GST e-way bill.
The Bench, concerning the wrong GSTIN, noted that the error seems to be genuine and could be condoned in the absence of proof linking the parties to the GSTIN holder. It mentioned that-
“the mentioning of the GSTIN of some other person appears to be a genuine mistake as there is no evidence to show that the appellant or their supplier or the transporter was in any way related to such GSTIN holder. Such mistakes are condonable, and we condone the same, with a suggestion to the appellant to refrain from making such avoidable mistakes, which unnecessarily creates doubts in the minds of the Tax authorities.”
Read Also: No Relief for Wrong GST E-Way Bill Details: Calcutta HC Confirms Penalty U/S 129
Therefore, the GSTAT quashed the penalty and permitted the appeal with consequential relief.
| Case Title | Kurian Abraham Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Keralam State GST |
| APPEAL No. | APL/28/TVP/2026 |
| For Appellant | Iype John |
| For Respondent | Mansur MI, AR |
| Thiruvananthapuram GSTAT | Read Order |
