TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court quashes orders for not considering Rule 138[10] CGST, emphasizes statutory compliance</h1> <h3>M/s. Hemanth Motors Versus State Of Karnataka, The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes In Karnataka, joint Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax (appeals) -5, The Union Of India, The Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs, New Delhi</h3> The Court held that the appellate authority erred in not considering Rule 138[10] of the CGST Rules, which allows an extension for unloading after the ... Confiscation of goods alongwith the vehicle - Extension of validity of E-way bill - petitioner contends that the conveyance carrying the vehicles reached the place of destination on 1.1.2019 before the expiry of the validity of the e-way bills but the vehicles could not be unloaded on the same day and were being unloaded on 2.1.2019 - HELD THAT:- Where there is no dispute that the conveyance had reached the place of destination well within the expiry of e-way bills, and the conveyance was being unloaded without any further transit, this Court is of the considered view that the appellate authority should have considered the merits of the proceedings against the petitioners in the light of the provisions of Rule 138[10] of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 which prescribes the validity of an e-way bill with the extension of further period by eight hours after the expiry. The failure to consider the petitioner’s case in the light of the provisions of Rule 138[10] of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 has resulted in an improper and untenable order. Petition allowed. Issues: Interpretation of Section 129 of the KGST/CGST Act, 2017; Validity of e-way bills; Consideration of Rule 138[10] of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.In this case, the petitioner, a dealer in TVS motor vehicles registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, challenged the impugned provisions of Section 129 of the Act and specific orders issued by the respondents. The petitioner contended that the conveyance carrying vehicles reached the destination within the validity period of the e-way bills but was being unloaded the next day. The authorities argued that e-way bills needed to be valid during unloading. The Court noted that the conveyance reached the destination within the e-way bill validity period and was being unloaded without further transit. The Court found that the appellate authority failed to consider Rule 138[10] of the CGST Rules, which allows an extension of eight hours after e-way bill expiry for unloading. Consequently, the Court held the order improper and quashed the impugned orders dated 28.11.2019, 7.1.2019, and 8.1.2019. The writ petition was allowed, providing relief to the petitioner against the improper orders issued by the authorities.This judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 129 of the KGST/CGST Act, 2017 concerning the detention, seizure, and release of goods and conveyances in transit. It also delves into the validity of e-way bills and the crucial consideration of Rule 138[10] of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which allows for an extension of the e-way bill validity period for unloading. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and ensuring proper consideration of relevant rules to avoid unjust outcomes for taxpayers.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
