1. Title of the Case
| Case Title | M/s Kurian Abraham Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Keralam State GST, Thiruvananthapuram |
| Case Number | Appeal No. APL/28/TVP/2026; Final Order No. 17/TVP/KERALAM/2026 (arising out of OIA No. GSTA 4/2022 dated 20.09.2022) |
| Court and Bench | Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench, Division Bench (Court No. I); Coram: Hon’ble Shri Subramanya Rayaprol, Vice-President and Hon’ble Shri Ramamoorthi Sriram, Member (Technical) |
| Date of Order | 30.10.2026 (hearing on 25.09.2026) |
| Relevant Provisions | Sections 2(7), 23(1)(b), 68(3), 112(2), 126 and 129 of the CGST / Kerala SGST Acts, 2017; Rules 55, 138 and 138(14)(d) of the CGST / Kerala SGST Rules, 2017; Notification No. 3/2018-State Tax dated 14.05.2018 |
2. Summary of the Judgment
Facts of the Case: On 04.01.2022 State GST officers intercepted a vehicle carrying 7,560 kg of natural rubber latex worth Rs. 3,85,560 to Kurian Abraham Pvt. Ltd. without an e-way bill. The delivery challan, prepared by the appellant on behalf of the supplier, Shri Arun Scaria, carried the GSTIN of an unrelated registered dealer, Anku Rubber. Treating it as a dealer-to-dealer movement, the officer issued Forms MOV-07 and MOV-09, and the appellant paid the penalty of Rs. 38,556 under Section 129(1)(a) the same day. The first appeal failed (paras 2, 3.1 to 3.5 and 3.24).
Issues for Determination: Whether the movement required an e-way bill or was exempt under Notification No. 3/2018-State Tax, and whether the wrong GSTIN justified the penalty (paras 5 and 6). The Revenue also objected that the amount was below the Section 112(2) threshold and that payment under Section 129(5) concluded the proceedings (paras 3.4 to 3.6).
Findings and Observations of the Court: The Tribunal noted that the challan described the supply as coming from a rubber estate, that Anku Rubber had denied by affidavit any supply to the appellant, and that Shri Arun Scaria had affirmed by affidavit that he was an unregistered agriculturist cultivating about 51.13 acres of leased plantation (paras 6 and 7). Serial No. 2 of the notification exempts intra-State movement of rubber latex from an agriculturist’s premises to a registered taxable person, irrespective of value, when accompanied by a Rule 55 delivery challan (paras 8 and 9). Those conditions being met, the detention and penalty were unsustainable (para 9). The wrong GSTIN was a genuine and condonable mistake, as nothing connected the appellant, the supplier or the transporter with the GSTIN holder (para 10).
Verdict and Basis of the Judgment: The penalties were set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, the Tribunal declining to penalise a clerical error when all other details in the challan were undisputed (para 11).
Analysis of the Judgment: The Tribunal gave weight to affidavits that the Revenue had called self-serving, and found the notification’s conditions satisfied without the lease, Rubber Board or payment records the Revenue said were missing (paras 3.13 to 3.15). The order does not record specific findings on the Section 112(2) and Section 129(5) objections, which may surface if the Revenue challenges it.
Legal Takeaway: A clerical error in a transport document, unconnected with evasion, should not by itself attract a Section 129 penalty where the substantive conditions of an e-way bill exemption are met. Buyers sourcing from agriculturists should nonetheless keep lease, Rubber Board and payment records.
3. Tabular Summary
| Sl. No. | Case Title | Case No. / Citation | Court / Bench | Date of Order | Facts & Issue | Verdict & Basis of Judgment | Key Legal Takeaway |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | M/s Kurian Abraham Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Keralam State GST, Thiruvananthapuram | APL/28/TVP/2026; Final Order No. 17/TVP/KERALAM/2026 | GSTAT, Thiruvananthapuram Bench (Subramanya Rayaprol, VP; Ramamoorthi Sriram, MT) | 30.10.2026 | Rubber latex from an agriculturist moved under delivery challan bearing an unrelated dealer’s GSTIN; penalty of Rs. 38,556 u/s 129 for want of e-way bill. Whether exempt under Notification 3/2018-State Tax. | Appeal allowed. Movement from agriculturist’s premises with Rule 55 delivery challan exempt from e-way bill; wrong GSTIN a genuine, condonable clerical mistake; penalty set aside. | Clerical errors in transport documents do not justify Section 129 penalty where exemption conditions are met. |
Download the judgment: Download PDF | View online
