2020 (10) TMI 1030 - HC - GST

Legal Obligation for E-Way Bills Clarified by Court Decision

Bon Cargos Private Limited Versus The Assistant State Tax Officer (INT) Devikulam, The State Tax Officer, The Commissioner Of State Tax, Thiruvananthapuram

The court held that the obligation to generate e-way bills exists when the aggregate value of goods carried in a conveyance exceeds Rs. 50,000, rejecting ... Maintainability of petition - Seizure of goods along with vehicle - generation of e-way bills where the value of the consignment is less than ₹ 50,000/- - HELD THAT:- On plain and simple reading of proviso to Sub Rule 3 it is evident that registered person or transporter at his option is obliged to generate and carry e-way bill even if the value of the consignment is less than ₹ 50,000/-. The orders under challenge in my view are amaenable to appeal as per the provisions of Section 107 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. In all cases of seizure in order to obliterate inconsistency in the application of law and do away with the multiple appeals, discretion has been left to the competent authority to decide the adjudication as early as possible in accordance with law - petition dismissed. Issues:1. Interpretation of rules regarding the generation of e-way bills under the GST Act.2. Maintainability of writ petitions in light of available remedies.3. Authority of the High Court in cases involving seizure of goods and vehicles.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Interpretation of rules regarding e-way billsThe petitioner contended that as a transporter, compliance with part B of e-way bills for consignments less than Rs. 50,000 is not mandatory. The petitioner argued that since there were two separate invoices, it constituted two consignments, thus requiring e-way bills for each. However, the court held that the obligation to generate e-way bills exists when the aggregate value of goods carried in a conveyance exceeds Rs. 50,000, as per Sub-Rule 7 of Rule 138 of the CGST Act. The court emphasized that the transporter or consignor must generate e-way bills for consignments exceeding Rs. 50,000, rejecting the petitioner's interpretation.Issue 2: Maintainability of writ petitionsThe State argued that writ petitions are not maintainable as an appeal is available, citing previous Supreme Court judgments. The court noted that the competent authority should process claims under the CGST Act and Rule 141, urging dismissal of the writ petitions. The court emphasized that the High Court cannot act as an appellate court under Article 226, and the petitioner should have pursued the available appeal mechanism instead of filing writ petitions.Issue 3: Authority of the High CourtThe court highlighted that the High Court should refrain from assuming the role of an appellate court and commenting on the veracity of orders, as appeals can be made under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The court referenced a Supreme Court judgment discouraging the practice of filing writ petitions for the release of goods, emphasizing the need for adjudication by the competent authority in accordance with the law to avoid inconsistencies and multiple appeals. Consequently, the court found the writ petitions lacking merit and dismissed them, emphasizing the authority of the competent authority to decide on such matters promptly.In conclusion, the judgment clarified the interpretation of rules regarding e-way bills, addressed the maintainability of writ petitions, and emphasized the authority of the High Court in cases involving the seizure of goods and vehicles under the GST Act.