GST: Officer duty bound to consider explanation for Expiry of E-way Bill u/s 129 CGST, rules Kerala HC [Read Order]

Officer duty - E-way Bill - CGST - Kerala HC - taxscan

The Single Bench of Kerala High Court held that, the reason for invoking Section 129 of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act when the E-way bill has expired then the officer is duty bound to consider the explanation offered by the petitioner for the expiry of the E-way bill.

The petitioner, Sanskruthi Motors is an entity engaged in the transportation of goods and entered into an agreement with M/s.Tata Motors Limited for transportation of commercial and passenger vehicles and chassis, which are driven to various destinations as required by that Company. On the request of M/s. Tata Motors Limited, the petitioner transported a new tipper lorry.

 The said vehicle was intercepted and detained by the Assistant State Tax Officer, and a show cause notice was issued. Consequently, it was found that the E-way bill had expired, since the vehicle was detained, the petitioner moved this Court and the lorry was directed to be released on production of bank guarantee.

 Following the directions of this Court, the notice was adjudicated and order was issued, imposing a penalty on the petitioner along with a demand for Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act. The petitioner preferred appeal against both the order under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act.

The Counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of the Telangana High Court in M/s. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt.Ltd & Another v. Asst. Commissioner (ST) and others; wherein it was held that once the validity of the E-way bill had expired just before the detention and that on a consideration of the provisions of Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Acts, the Court held that when there was a valid explanation for the expiry of the E-way bill and there were no materials to suggest evasion of tax, the power of detention under Section 129 was wrongly invoked and was a blatant abuse of power by the authorities concerned.

The Counsel on behalf of Respondent submitted the judgment in Ranjilal Damodaran v. Asst. State Tax Officer and another and contended that the petitioner could not have been allowed to continue the transport without extending the validity of the e-way bill as provided under Rule 138 (10) of the CGST Rules.

Justice Gopinath P, observed that “As noticed by the Division Bench of the Telangana High Court in Satyam Shivam’s case, the officer was duty bound to consider the explanation offered by the petitioner for the expiry of the E-way bill.”

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

taxscan-loader