FARUK RATHORE v. DY. COMMISSIONER , CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

📅 June 5, 2026 👤 Team Batuk Consultancy 📂 GST, GST Case Laws

High Court, Rajasthan

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Justice & Munnuri Laxman, Justice

FARUK RATHORE

DY. COMMISSIONER , CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 13473/2022 dated 15.04.2024

Law : GST

Act Name : Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017

Relevant Section : Section 68, 122 & 129

Rule Number : Rule 138

Rule Name : Central Goods & Services Tax Rules, 2017

Decision : Partly in favour of assessee

E-way bill had expired 44 minutes ago – It is the case of the petitioner that on the way from Jaipur to Bikaner, the truck’s tyre got punctured resulting in the vehicle reaching Bikaner late at night on 26.02.2021 thereby resulting in delay in unloading of the truck at Mahaveer Iron Store due to unavailability of labour, and thus, unloading could be done only at 6 p.m. on 27.02.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed that the truck would reach late evening around 9 p.m. on 27.02.2021, however due to unavailability of labour to unload the goods, it was decided that the truck should reach on 28.02.2021, thus the driver stayed in Bikaner during the night. – Held That – The court observed that in the instant case, the delay of almost 4:30 hours before which E-way Bill stood expired appears to be bona fide and without establishing fraudulent intent and negligence on the part of petitioner, the impugned notice/order could not have been passed.’ This Court further observes that the only fault lying with the petitioner was that the e-way bill with regard to the goods that were being transported had expired 44 minutes before the inspection took place due to the delay caused resulting from the tyre puncture for no fault of either of the petitioner or the driver of the truck. This Court further observes that the impugned notice was issued and the impugned order passed u/s 129 (3) of the CGST Act, the same being completely unjustified in the eye of law as the issue was not one of there not being an e-way bill, but one of the existing e-way bill having expired during transit, thus imposition of such a heavy penalty for a minor offence is unacceptable.

Represented By:

Counsel for the Petitioner: Shafi Mohammad Chouhan (through VC), V.R. Choudhary

FARUK RATHORE v. DY. COMMISSIONER , CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

FARUK RATHORE v. DY. COMMISSIONER , CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

🔒 Premium Content

Quick Link

Get In Touch