The Kerala High Court has once again reiterated that the omission to fulfill Part-B of the E-Way Bill cannot be treated as a minor one and in such cases, the goods can only be released after satisfying the statutory conditions.
The vehicle of the petitioner was intercepted by the department officials and thereafter seized the same on the ground that Part B of the accompanied e-way bill has not completed, hence not valid for the movement of goods as per Section 138 of the GST Act and Rules 2017.
Before the Court, the petitioners contended that if somebody transports any taxable goods without the cover of documents, at best he can be mulcted with Rs.10,000/- as fine, and nothing more.
The Government Pleader, Dr. Thushara James argued that the Court in its past judgments has held that unfilled Part B of the e-way bill cannot be treated as a minor omission even as for the CBITC circular, dated 14th September 2018. She further pointed out that under Section 129, if the petitioner wants the goods provisionally released, then it must comply the statutory mandate.
Accepting the contentions of the department, Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu held that “Indeed, as seen from the detention notice, the petitioner carried an e-way bill, in which Part B remained unfilled. True, on earlier occasions, this Court has examined the issue; one such occasion is K. Karunakaran v. The Assistant State Tax Officer.”
“If the petitioner wants the interim custody of the goods, it may comply with the statutory mandate under Section 129(1)(b) and get them released. Of course, the petitioner’s compliance with Section 129(1) (b) does not affect its defense it may advance before the State Tax Officer when that authority determines the issue of detention,” the Court said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
