Facts of the Case:

In this case, the assessee was transporting an excavator from the project site of M/s OPSIS Projects India Pvt. Ltd., Trans Ganga City, Unnao, back to its registered premises at Kanpur. The movement was supported by a Delivery Challan and the appellant contended that the excavator belonged to it, both consignor and consignee bore the same GSTIN, and there was no sale or taxable supply involved. The appellant further claimed that the movement was within 20 kilometres and was consequently covered by an exemption from the e-Way Bill requirement.

The excavator was intercepted without an e-Way Bill and the proper officer imposed a penalty of ₹3.24 lakh under Section 129(3), which was upheld by the First Appellate Authority.

Issue:
Whether transportation of an assessee’s own excavator from a project site to its registered premises, accompanied by a Delivery Challan but without an e-Way Bill, could be treated as a mere procedural lapse when the appellant claimed that the movement was not pursuant to a supply and was within the alleged 20-kilometre exemption.

Held That:

The GSTAT, Lucknow upheld the penalty. It held that under Section 68 read with Rule 138, the requirement of prescribed documents, including an e-Way Bill, applies to movement of goods even for reasons other than supply, subject to specifically notified exemptions. Therefore, merely owning the excavator or returning it to the registered premises did not dispense with the e-Way Bill requirement.

The appellant also failed to satisfactorily establish that the movement was covered by the claimed 20-kilometre exemption. Further, although the appellant stated that the excavator had been used at the project site on an hourly basis, it did not produce sufficient evidence regarding operating hours, consideration charged or corresponding GST payment. In these circumstances, the Tribunal held that the appellant failed to establish either a valid exemption or that the lapse was merely procedural and without revenue implications.

Consequently, action under Section 68 read with Rule 138 and Section 129 was held justified and the appeal was rejected.

Key takeaway: Own goods are not automatically exempt from e-Way Bill compliance. Even movement of machinery without a supply requires an e-Way Bill unless a specific exemption is satisfactorily established. Mere ownership, common GSTIN or use of a Delivery Challan cannot substitute the statutory requirement.

Case Name: D.S Traders v. Commissioner, Commissioner SGST dated 25.08.2026

Citation No. 2026 Taxo.online 2652