The Lucknow Bench of GSTAT held that generating an e-way bill nine minutes after the vehicle was intercepted was only a procedural lapse, where the underlying transaction was genuine, and there was no evidence of any intention to evade tax.
The taxpayer, Lucknow Automotives, is a registered proprietorship functioning in the purchase and sale of motorcycles and spare parts.
A vehicle carrying motorcycles, having invoices and challans, was intercepted by the Mobile Squad, State Tax, Gonda, on 20 January 2025 at around 7:25 A.M. No GST e-way bill had been generated during interception.
The e-way bill was generated at 7:34 A.M. (nine minutes) after the interception and was delivered before the inspecting officer. The department levied a penalty of Rs 2,63,330. The First Appellate Authority upheld the penalty.
The representative of the taxpayer said that the transaction was genuine and that the motorcycles had their proper invoices and challans. It was claimed that the delay in generating the e-way bill before the inspecting authority was a bona fide mistake and there was no intent to evade tax.
Also Read: What is GST E Way Bill & How To Generate Via Online or SMS in Your State?
The representative of the counsel claimed that the generation of the e-way bill after interception could not verify the movement of goods and asked for the dismissal of the appeal.
The bench, Santosh Kumar Srivastava (Judicial Member) and Arvind Kumar (Technical Member), said that “No independent material has been brought on record demonstrating suppression, clandestine movement, undervaluation, fake documentation or any other positive circumstance indicating tax evasion. The peculiar facts of this case are to be a bona fide procedural lapse rather than an act forming part of an attempt to evade tax.”
Read Also: SC Upholds Allahabad HC Ruling on ₹90.62 Lakh GST Demand for Lack of E-Way Bill
The tribunal noted that the motorcycles could be identified by their engine and chassis numbers and were subject to RTO registration. The tribunal permitted the appeal and quashed the penalty.
| Case Title | M/s Lucknow Automotives Vs Assistant Commissioner |
| Case No. | APL/8/LCK/2026 |
| For Appellant | Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma |
| For Respondent | Mr Mahendra Pratap Singh |
| Lucknow GSTAT | Read Order |
