The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the goods cannot be seized for non-filling of Part B of the E-Way Bill transported within a distance of 50kms.
The Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the seizure order and the consequential penalty notice passed/issued under Section 129(1) and 129(3) of the Act respectively.
The petitioner is a registered company having its registered office at Gurugram, Haryana. The petitioner company is also registered under the GST Act, 2017 and is carrying on business of transportation of goods from one place to another. The Branch of petitioner’s company is also declared in the State of U.P. which situates at Plot No.68, Ecotech-12, Greater Noida, U.P. The said Branch has been leased out to the petitioner by one M/s Paras Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi for the purpose of loading and unloading of goods which are brought from the Delhi for transportation and re-loading in different vehicles to be booked for transportation of goods outside Delhi. One M/s Paharpur 3P, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, the consignor has dispatched Flexible Laminates, which are covered by invoices dated 15.04.2018, for the supply to the consignee M/s Bayer Bioscience Pvt. Ltd., Medak, Telangana, who is also a registered dealer.
The Court has allowed the contentions of the petitioners that, Goods are transported for a distance upto 50 Km within the State from place of business of consignor to place of transporter for further transportation, the transporter may not furnish the details of conveyance in ‘Part B’ of GST e-way bill-01.
The petitioner contended that, the notification no.12 of 2018 dated 07.03.2018 issued by CGST as well as the notification no. 487 dated 26.03.2018 issued under the UPGST Act, it is apparent that both the aforesaid notification are pari-materia and third proviso of Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 138 provides that where goods are transported for a distance upto 50 Km within the State from place of business of consignor to place of transporter for further transportation, the transporter may not furnish the details of conveyance in ‘Part B’ of GST e-way bill-01.
The petitioner also contended that, the distance was much below within the prescribed limit of 50 km in between the consignors place of business and transport company from where the goods were required to be reloaded in different transport vehicles for their onward journey. He has further submitted that since the department itself has issued the notification, therefore, the entire seizure proceeding is wholly illegal as also consequential penalty proceedings.
While allowing the Writ Petition, the division bench comprising of Justice Ashok Kumar and Justice Krishna Murari observed that, “there is no reason to disbelieve the contention of the petitioner which has been furnished at the time of inspection of the vehicle before the respondent no.4”.
While setting aside the order of seizure dated 16.04.2018 passed under Section 129(1) of the Act and the consequential penalty notice dated 16.04.2018 issued under Section 129(3) of the Act the Court observed that “Since the consignor and consignee both are registered dealers as well as the present petitioner who is a transport company, there is no basis or reason not to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and further once the Government itself has clarified the situation by allowing the transporter/dealer to fill up ‘Part B’ of the e-way bill when the goods are reloaded in a vehicle which is meant for delivery to the consignee, there remain no reasons to seized the goods and the vehicle”.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
