Penalty for Expiry of E-way Bill of Exported Goods Not Enforceable: Gujarat High Court [Read Order]
The penalty imposed was deemed harsh and beyond scope. Gujarat HC allows appeal, quashes orders from lower authorities
![Penalty for Expiry of E-way Bill of Exported Goods Not Enforceable: Gujarat High Court [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/02/26/2127226-penalty-expiry-e-way-bill-exported-goods-not-enforceable-gujarat-high-court-taxscan.webp "Penalty for Expiry of E-way Bill of Exported Goods Not Enforceable: Gujarat High Court [Read Order]")
The Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad recently held that the penalty for expiry of e-way bill of exported goods was not enforceable. A question of law was raised in the writ petition filed before the High Court. A direction is sought for holding and declaring that for the expiry of E-way Bill in case of exported goods where the penalty of INR 18,00,140/- under Section 129(1)(a) of...
The Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad recently held that the penalty for expiry of e-way bill of exported goods was not enforceable.
A question of law was raised in the writ petition filed before the High Court. A direction is sought for holding and declaring that for the expiry of E-way Bill in case of exported goods where the penalty of INR 18,00,140/- under Section 129(1)(a) of the Central Goods andServices Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) is not imposable.
The case of Macrowagan Retail Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2025) has been referred to which details with the transportation of goods at zero rated supply, the same as been mentioned in Section 5(1) read with Section 7(5) of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act) and Rules 89 and 96 of the CGST Rules.
The facts that are not in dispute are that the E-way bill dated 21.03.2025 expired at 2400 hours on 22.03.2025 and as per CGST Rules the transporter could have extended the E-way by 0800 hours on 23.03.2025. However, the vehicle was intercepted on 1522 after 15 hours from the expiry of the E-way bill. This bill could not be extended due to the breakdown of the conveyance and the management was unaware of the expiry during transit.
The bench comprising Justices A.S. Supehia and Pranav Trivedi ruled that the imposition of penalty is harsh under Section129(2) and uncalled for. Further added that the penalty is also beyond the scope of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act. The previous orders were quashed.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
