High Court Quashes Rs. 18 Lakh Penalty for 15-Hour E-Way Bill Expiry:

High Court Quashes Rs. 18 Lakh Penalty for 15-Hour E-Way Bill Expiry

Court Rules Breakdown of Vehicle Justifies Delay; Orders Refund with Interest High Court Quashes GST Penalty on Expired E-Way Bill Court Rules Breakdown of Vehicle Justifies Delay; Orders Refund with Interest

High Court Quashes GST Penalty on Expired E-Way Bill

authorMeetu KumaridateMar 6, 2026
Last update on Mar 6, 2026
High Court Quashes Rs. 18 Lakh Penalty for 15-Hour E-Way Bill Expiry The petitioner, Balkrishna Industries Limited, challenged an order imposing a heavy penalty under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act. The company’s goods were being transported when the conveyance suffered a breakdown, causing a delay in transit. Thereafter, the E-Way bill expired at 08:00 hours on March 22, 2025.
Sales Tax Bar Urges FM to Reduce High GSTAT Appeal Fees; Highlights Burden on MSMEs and Small Traders
Although the transporter had the option to extend the validity by 08:00 hours on March 23, 2025, they failed to do so. The vehicle was intercepted by GST authorities at 15:22 hours on March 23, 2025, merely 15 hours after the extension window closed. The authorities seized the goods and imposed a penalty of Rs. 18,00,140, alleging a violation of transit rules. Issue Raised: Whether the imposition of a harsh penalty under Section 129 is sustainable when the expiry of the E-Way bill was due to an involuntary breakdown of the vehicle and where there was no intent to evade tax.
Sales Tax Bar Urges FM to Reduce High GSTAT Appeal Fees; Highlights Burden on MSMEs and Small Traders
HC Ruled: The Hon'ble High Court quashed the penalty and ruled in favor of the petitioner. The Bench observed that the facts of the breakdown were undisputed and the delay was a marginal 15 hours. The Court held that the management was unaware of the expiry during transit and that there was no "mens rea" (guilty intent) to evade tax. Relying on Macrowagon Retail Pvt. Ltd., the Court declared the penalty "uncalled for" and beyond the scope of Section 129(1)(a). The respondents were directed to refund the amount of Rs. 18,00,140 along with applicable interest to the petitioner within the prescribed timeframe. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below

About Author

LinkedIn

Meetu Kumari

Content Manager

Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2255
Up Next

Loading suggestions…