2020 (8) TMI 481 - HC - GST

Court rules detention of goods unjustified due to minor document discrepancies

M.S. Steel And Pipes Versus Asst. State Tax Officer, Commissioner of State Gst

M.S. Steel And Pipes Versus Asst. State Tax Officer, Commissioner of State Gst - 2020 (40) G.S.T.L. 175 (Ker.) , [2020] 81 G S.T.R. 158 (Ker) Issues:Challenge of detention notices based on e-way bill discrepancy.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the detention of goods due to a discrepancy in the e-way bill accompanying the transportation. The notices of detention stated that the e-way bill did not separately mention the tax amounts, leading to the detention of the goods. The petitioner argued that there is no legal requirement to mention tax amounts separately in the e-way bill as long as the tax payment is evident from other accompanying documents like the tax invoice. The petitioner contended that since both the tax invoice and the e-way bill were provided, clearly indicating tax payment, there was no justification for detention under Section 129 of the Act.The Government Pleader, on the other hand, argued that Section 33 of the GST Act mandates the prominent indication of tax amounts in all relevant documents related to tax assessment and invoices. It was contended that the e-way bill, being a crucial document akin to a tax invoice, should also contain details of the tax amount. The Government Pleader linked this requirement to Section 129, which empowers the detention of goods in transit if there is a contravention of the Act. It was asserted that the absence of tax details in the e-way bill amounted to a violation of Section 33, justifying the detention.After considering the arguments, the Court rejected the contentions of the Government Pleader. It was emphasized that the power of detention under Section 129 should only be exercised if there is a clear contravention of the Act and Rules, not merely due to a lack of tax details in a specific document. The Court highlighted that Rule 138(A) of the GST Rules specifies the documents required during transportation, which include the tax invoice and the e-way bill in the prescribed format. Since the e-way bill format (FORM GST EWB-01) does not mandate the separate mention of tax amounts, the Court ruled that the absence of such details does not constitute a violation. As the petitioner had complied with the prescribed documents and there was no breach of any statutory provision, the detention of goods was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the detention notices, and directed the immediate release of the goods to the petitioner upon furnishing a copy of the judgment to the authorities.