GSTAT Finds Goods Diversion Not Established by Sufficient Evidence:

GSTAT Finds Goods Diversion Not Established by Sufficient Evidence

The GSTAT holds that valid tax invoice and E-Way bill cannot be disregarded on mere suspicion.

GSTAT Quashes Rs 7.20 Lakh Penalty

authorSaimadateOct 31, 2026
Last update on Oct 30, 2026

Chemenergy Biofuels Limited filed an appeal before the GSTAT challenging the Order-in-Appeal dated 12 August 2025, by which the first appellate authority had upheld a penalty of Rs 7,20,674 imposed under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act, 2017, read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017.

CBIC Clarifies GST Input Tax Credit Rules for Banks, FIs and NBFCs Under Section 17(4)

The dispute arose on 18 August 2024, when a vehicle bearing registration number HR74B9944, carrying 33.930 metric tonnes of refined glycerine valued at Rs 23,62,207, was intercepted near the entrance of an industrial establishment in Kanpur Dehat. The goods were accompanied by Tax Invoice No. CBPL/24-25/709 dated 17 August 2024 and E-Way Bill No. 401470024501 dated 17 August 2024. The documents identified M/s Premier Chemicals as the bill-to party and M/s Govind Rashyan Udyog, Kolkata, as the ship-to party.

The department alleged that the vehicle was intended to unload the goods at the local factory rather than deliver them to the declared recipient in Kolkata. Proceedings under Section 129 followed, culminating in the penalty order dated 23 August 2024. The first appellate authority subsequently rejected the company’s appeal and upheld the penalty.

CBIC Allows ITC on Demo Vehicles to Authorised Dealers Under Dealer-Agency Model under Section 17(5)

The Tribunal noted that the goods were accompanied by an invoice and e-way bill and that no discrepancy had been recorded in their description or quantity. These documents supported the appellant’s explanation that the transportation related to a disclosed commercial transaction.

The Tribunal observed that the mere presence of a vehicle near a factory entrance did not conclusively establish that the goods were intended to be delivered there. In the absence of evidence showing actual unloading, receipt of the goods by the alleged local recipient, or other independent material establishing the alleged diversion, the declared transaction could not be displaced merely on suspicion or an inference drawn from the vehicle’s location.

IT Department Urges Select Taxpayers to Disclose Undeclared Overseas Assets Under FAST-DS

Accordingly, the GSTAT allowed the appeal filed by Chemenergy Biofuels Limited and set aside the penalty of Rs 7,20,674. 

About Author

LinkedIn

Saima

Content Writer

Saima is a Law graduate with a passion for research and content writing. She writes for Finance, Taxation and Legal Updates at Studycafe.in, simplifying complex legal decisions by the ITAT, High Court, AAR and GSTAT into uncomplicated and clear explanations.
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
599
Up Next

Loading suggestions…