GSTAT: Detention upheld as e-way bill showed wrong vehicle with no proof of breakdown, indicating evasion intent{ Ferrous Infra Solutions vs. Commissioner SGST Uttar Pradesh [2026] 190 taxmann.com 324 (GSTAT – LUCKNOW)}
Facts
- Appellant was transporting goods covered by an e-way bill.
- On interception, the vehicle number mentioned in the e-way bill was different from the vehicle actually carrying the goods.
- Appellant sought to explain the discrepancy by stating that the original vehicle had broken down and another vehicle was used.
- However, no convincing/documentary evidence of the alleged breakdown was produced before the authorities.
Issue
Whether the mere explanation of vehicle breakdown, without supporting evidence, was sufficient to justify the vehicle/e-way bill discrepancy, or whether the discrepancy indicated intent to evade GST, warranting detention and demand under the relevant provisions.
Held
- The vehicle actually transporting the goods was different from the vehicle number declared in the e-way bill.
- The assessee claimed that the original vehicle had broken down but failed to produce credible evidence/proof of the breakdown.
- In these circumstances, the vehicle-number discrepancy could not be treated as a mere technical or clerical error.
- The circumstances supported the department’s inference of intention to evade tax.
- Accordingly, the detention and consequential proceedings were upheld.
