The E-way bill system under GST ensures smooth movement of goods across India with proper documentation. Understanding the validity and extension process of an E-way bill is crucial to remain compliant and avoid penalties.
An E-way bill is a document required for the movement of goods worth more than ₹50,000 under the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) regime in India.
The validity of an E-way bill is based on the distance the goods have to travel. The validity of an E-way bill is determined by the distance that the goods need to be transported. A one-day validity is allowed on distances up to 100 km. For every additional 100 km or part thereof 1 extra day validity is given.
Example Validity Calculation
If the distance to be travelled is 150 km, the validity would be 1 day + 1 day = 2 days.
For a distance of 350 km, the validity would be 1 day + 3 days = 4 days.
Extending the Validity of an E-way Bill
There are certain circumstances under which the validity of an E-way bill can be extended. This extension can be done either before the expiry of the original validity period or within 8 hours after the expiry.
Expiry and Consequences
An E-way bill expires if the goods do not reach their destination within the validity period specified based on the distance. An expired E-way bill is considered invalid, and the transportation of goods without a valid E-way bill is illegal under GST law. Transporting goods without a valid E-way bill can attract penalties, including:
A fine of ₹10,000 or the tax sought to be evaded (whichever is higher). Goods and the vehicle may be detained by the GST authorities, leading to delays and potential legal complications.
The Gujarat High Court has recently set aside the detention order of trucks of Shree Ram Road Carriers, as the demand and detention was based merely on assumption of tax evasion from expiry of E-Way Bill. The Division Bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Manuna M Bhatt observed that the conduct of petitioner appeared to be bonafide and without establishing any fraudulent intention. Resultantly, the petition for release of goods and the truck was allowed, while the impugned order of demand was set aside.
The Tripura High Court deleted the penalty equal to tax amount for E-way Bill Expiry and imposed Rs. 10000 penalty. The petitioner, M/s Sri Gopikrishna Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd has challenged the Order wherein the liability of the petitioner of paying the CGST and SGST has been determined Rs.3,56,990. “The other incidences as catalogued in Section 122 of the CGST Act are not relevant to the present case and as such we are of the firm view that the Superintendent of State Tax has exceeded his jurisdiction while imposing the penalty,” the court said.
The Calcutta High Court has ruled in favour of refunding a penalty in a case involving a 9-hour time gap between the expiration of an e-way bill and the interception of the associated vehicle. The judgment was delivered by a Single bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin, who noted that there was no evidence of the petitioner’s intent to evade tax. The court, in its judgment, disposed of the writ petition by overturning the orders issued by the appellate authority and adjudicating authority. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the penalty in question, provided that all necessary legal requirements are met.
The Karnataka High Court held that the validity of Unloading of goods after expiry of E-way bill may be extended for 8 hours which reached destination before expiry of E-way Bill. The single-judge bench of Justice Shyam Prasad held that the appellate authority should have considered the merits of the proceedings against the petitioners in the light of the provisions of Rule 138(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 which prescribes the validity of an e-way bill with the extension of further period by eight hours after the expiry. The failure to consider the petitioner’s case in the light of the provisions of Rule 138(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 has resulted in an improper and untenable order.
The Calcutta High Court directed the issuance of FORM GST MOV-02 as the expiry of e-way bill is only by one day. The Court of Justice Md. Nizamuddin directed the respondent authority concerned to upload the aforesaid FORM GST MOV-02 in the name of the petitioner, if on verification it is found that the petitioner is the owner of the goods in question, within three days from the date of judgment The respondent authority concerned was also directed to consider the release of the goods in question expeditiously and preferably within seven days from the date of compliance of all the formalities by the petitioner. To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
The Uttarakhand High Court has ordered to release a vehicle seized by the GST department due to expiry of the E-way bill. The petitioners were allowed to release the vehicle by furnishing a simple bond. Justice Lok Pal Singh permitted release of goods and held that “Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, as an interim measure, it is directed that the vehicle of the petitioner shall be released forthwith provided the petitioner furnishes a security before the authority concerned as per the provisions contained under clause (c) sub-section (1) of Section 129 of The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.”
The Calcutta High Court deleted the penalty on the expiry of an e-way bill lesser than a day due to a reason beyond the control of the assessee is excusable. The Court considered the fact that the period of expiry of the e-way bill is lesser than a day and that such delay was not deliberate and willful and the delay has been caused for the reason beyond the control of the petitioner. After considering the facts and circumstances the Court disposed of the petition by setting aside the impugned order.
The State Government of Tamil Nadu has notified the list of documents to be carried by the transporter when the E-Way Bill expires. A number of cases has been reported when the department seizes the vehicle on ground of expiry of e-way bill.
In a significant ruling, a division bench of the Gujarat High Court has held that since the assessee does not have ill-intent to evade GST as the e-way bill expired during the transit. Granting relief to the petitioners, the Court held that “the impugned order dated 28.09.2018 demanding a sum of Rs.63,40,000/- is quashed and set aside. The order of detention as well as the further notice issued under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act in FORM GST MOV-07 is also quashed and set aside, with all consequential benefits. The tax of Rs.11,41,200/- and the matching amount of penalty had been recovered, making it total of Rs.22,82,400/-. The penalty being an additional amount in wake of this quashment, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner with interest, within eight weeks.”
A Single Bench of the Madras High Court has quashed the GST demand and detention order holding that the penalty demand after 7 days of detention for expiry of E-way bill would be invalid. The Bench observed that, “In the instant case, after detaining the petitioner’s vehicle and the goods on 26.10.2022, notice was issued by the respondents on 31.10.2022 within seven days from the date of detention. However, the consequential order for payment of penalty was passed only on 10.11.2022 which is beyond the period of seven days from the date of service of notice on the petitioner. Having passed the impugned order beyond the period of seven days from the date of service of notice on the petitioner which is contrary to section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, the impugned orders have to be necessarily quashed and the writ petitions will have to be allowed.”
A Division bench of the High Court of Tripura recently set aside the imposed penalty for expiry of GST E-way bills and observed that the same had expired during transit, and the assessee was unable to renew them with the competent authority. It was thus opined that the order dated passed by the Appellate Authority is not just and proper and the same is liable to be set aside. The Tripura High Court, allowing the refund remarked that the petitioner was entitled to all consequential reliefs including the refund.
The Tripura High Court released the Machinery detained due to the expiry of the E-Way bill on an undertaking that if any tax or Penalty is crystallized the same would be discharged. Therefore, the Court ordered the release of the machinery upon the petitioner filing an undertaking before this Court that eventually subject to appeal and further right to challenge the order of assessment, if any tax or penalty liability is crystallized, the petitioner would discharge the same.
The single bench of the Calcutta high court in a writ petition filed before upholds the proceedings on expiry of E-Way bill during transportation due to breakdown of vehicle. The petitioner Ashok and Sons is the manufacturer/supplier of milestone Bitumen Emulsion and Allied products. He is a Registered Taxable Person duly registered under the GST Act with specific GSTIN number. After considering the contentions of the both parties the single bench of the Justice Bibek Chaudhuri held that the “respondent authority is lawfully permitted to impose penalty under Section 129 as well as the State Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 as the goods were found to be detained in the territory of the State”.
The Bench of the Acting Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan at Jharkhand High Court has recently directed the petitioner, M/s Shivam HiTech Steels Pvt. Ltd to seek available alternative remedies. Observing that, an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 107 of Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, the Division Bench disposed the writ petition without going into the merits of the case.
The Calcutta High Court ordered for refund of penalty as the time between expiry of the e-way bill and the interception of the vehicle in question was proved. A Single Bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin observed that “In view of the facts and circumstances of the case which appears from record and considering the aforesaid two orders of this Court, this writ petition being WPA 22612 of 2023 is disposed of by setting aside the aforesaid impugned order of the appellate authority and adjudicating authority and as a consequence, petitioner will be entitled to get the refund of the penalty in question subject to compliance of legal formalities.” Counsels Ankit Kanodia, Megha Agarwal, Jitesh Sah appeared for the petitioners and counsels A. Ray, T. M. Siddiqui, T. Chakraborty appeared for the state.
The Single Bench of Kerala High Court held that, the reason for invoking Section 129 of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act when the E-way bill has expired then the officer is duty bound to consider the explanation offered by the petitioner for the expiry of the E-way bill. Justice Gopinath P, observed that “As noticed by the Division Bench of the Telangana High Court in Satyam Shivam’s case, the officer was duty bound to consider the explanation offered by the petitioner for the expiry of the E-way bill.”
The Bench of the Acting Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan at Jharkhand High Court has recently directed the petitioner, M/s Shivam Hi Tech Steels Pvt. Ltd to seek available alternative remedies in the writ petition against the impugned GST Demand and Detention of Vehicle on expiry of e-way bill. Observing that an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 107 of Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, the Division Bench disposed the writ petition without going into the merits of the case.
The Delhi High Court has held that penalty for mere expiry of an e-way bill is not justifiable when all documents produced except the reason for the delay in transportation of goods are not stated. It was evident that the petitioner was not intended to evade tax and the court opined that the petitioner needs to be given another chance to establish a reason, as to why the subject goods did not reach their designated designation before the expiry of the e-way bill. Mr Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Ms Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order.
A Single Bench of the Allahabad High Court quashed seizure memo as there was no intention on the side of the petitioner, to evade Goods and Service Tax (GST) since E-Way Bill expired due to the break down of the vehicle. “In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and since the authorities below have not recorded any findings with regard to the submissions made by the petitioner the impugned orders as well as seizure memo dated 23.7.2023 could not be sustained in the eye of law and are hereby quashed” the Court noted.
The Allahabad High Court overturned a penalty imposed for presenting 10-days expired Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) E-way bill during detention. The Court observed that the authorities failed to establish any intent to evade tax in the case. While acknowledging a technical violation, the court found insufficient evidence of repeated E-Way Bill misuse or deliberate tax evasion. Consequently, the court ruled that the mere technical violation, without intent to evade tax, cannot warrant penalty under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act. The impugned orders were quashed, and the respondents were directed to refund the tax and penalty within four weeks.
The Calcutta High Court quashed the penalty under the West Bengal Goods and Service Tax ( WBGST) Act,2017. The GST e-way bill expired due to an accident. The vehicle met the accident and there was a settlement made between the owner of the motorcycle and the owner of the truck carrying the goods, this also added to the delay in the process. A division bench comprising Chief Justice T S Sivagnanam and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya held that no penalty can be imposed on the appellant and quashed the order. The Court further held that “since the appellant had paid the penalty during the pendency of the proceedings, the appellant is entitled to apply for a refund of the amount of the penalty collected which shall be considered and a refund be effected as expeditiously as possible preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of the server copy of the order.”
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
