2020 (12) TMI 1045 - HC - GST

Court upholds detention orders for goods without e-way bills despite exemption threshold argument

BON CARGOS PRIVATE LIMITED Versus THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, THE STATE TAX OFFICER, THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX

The Court upheld the judgment refusing to interfere with two detention orders concerning goods transported by a Goods Transport Agency without proper ... Detention of goods alongwith the vehicle - There was no e-way bill accompanying the consignment. - Individual consignment (out of many) had a value of less than ₹ 50,000/- - goods detained have already been released on Bank guarantee - appellant vehemently argues that the proceedings initiated itself are without jurisdiction - HELD THAT:- Explanation 2 defines the consignment value of goods to be that declared in an invoice, a bill of supply or a delivery chalan including the goods and services tax payable with any Cess charged. Sub-Rule (1) read with Explanation 2 leads to only one inference that the consignment value has to be determined from the invoice. But when goods of the same consignment covered by multiple invoices exceed the limit of ₹ 50,000/-, necessarily there should be generation of e-way bill. Otherwise the mandate for generation of an e-way bill would be defeated and rendered redundant enabling the consignors to issue any number of bills having value below ₹ 50,000/- and consign them in one vehicle. The consignment value is that shown in the invoice. When goods of the same consignor covered by different invoices are consigned together in one vehicle; the value will be the total of that in the multiple invoices. Appeal dismissed. Issues:Challenge to detention orders based on lack of jurisdiction and exemption under Rule 138 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017.Analysis:The appellant challenged the judgment refusing to interfere with two detention orders, arguing that the proceedings initiated were without jurisdiction as the goods detained were valued at less than Rs. 50,000 and fell under an exemption available under Rule 138 of the CGST Rules. In the first case, goods worth Rs. 33,748 were detained without an accompanying e-way bill. In the second case, goods worth Rs. 43,836 and Rs. 11,593 were detained for the same reason. The appellant, a Goods Transport Agency, transported these goods within the State without updating part B of the e-way bill.The Court analyzed Rule 138, which mandates the generation of an e-way bill for goods exceeding Rs. 50,000 in value. The Court clarified that the consignment value is determined from the invoice, and when goods covered by multiple invoices from the same consignor exceed Rs. 50,000, an e-way bill must be generated. Failure to do so would render the requirement for an e-way bill redundant. The Court held that when goods from the same consignor covered by different invoices are transported together, the total value of all invoices determines the consignment value, requiring the generation of an e-way bill to prevent misuse.The Court found that the detention was not without jurisdiction, as the Statutory Authority had valid grounds for detention. One case had already resulted in an adjudication order. Therefore, the Court upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge and found no lack of jurisdiction in the actions of the Statutory Authority. Both writ appeals were dismissed without costs.