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>E-way Bills Can Be Amended or Reissued for Same Consignment Under Rule 138(10) of CGST Rules</h1> <h3>Progressive Enterprise Versus The State of Tripura and others</h3> The HC ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing immediate release of detained telecommunication materials and transport vehicle. The court determined ... Detention of goods alongwith the vehicle - new E-way bill - once the driver of the vehicle produces a valid e-way bill, the authorities concerned are responsible to honour the same and if any fault is found therein, action can obviously be taken up under the statute - HELD THAT:- It appears from the facts of the present case that the consignor had sent the goods to the State of Tripura, however, due to various reasons cited in the petition including non-availability of land, etc. the consignor sought to take back the goods from Tripura to Guwahati and the necessary e-way bill for such transportation was also provided. Consequently, Rule 138 (10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 which applies in the present case and in particular second proviso thereof conceivable situation where e-way bills can either be amended or reissued for the self-same consignment, but bona fide reasons for such change must be justified. The only lawful inference therefrom is that the said Rule has been complied with by the petitioner consequent to which fresh e-way bills were issued and produced before the concerned authorities. There are no justification in further detention of the goods at the Churaibari check-post - the goods are directed to be released - petition allowed. Issues:1. Validity of e-way bills and detention of goods during transportation.Detailed Analysis:The writ petition involved a situation where the petitioner, engaged in transporting telecommunication materials, faced detention of goods by the authorities during transportation from Tripura to Guwahati. The petitioner had generated e-way bills for the consignment, but the goods were seized by the authorities despite the driver producing valid e-way bills. The main issue was the authorities' refusal to allow the goods to be transported even after the production of new e-way bills.The Court examined the provisions of Rule 138(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which pertains to the validity of e-way bills. The rule allows for the amendment or reissuance of e-way bills for the same consignment under certain conditions. In this case, it was found that the petitioner had complied with the said rule by issuing fresh e-way bills for the consignment in question. The Court emphasized that once a valid e-way bill is produced, the authorities are obligated to honor it, subject to any necessary actions under the law.The Court further noted that the consignor had valid reasons, such as non-availability of land, for taking back the goods from Tripura to Guwahati. The authorities were required to consider the newly issued e-way bills and permit the transport of the consignment if found in order. Accordingly, the Court directed the immediate release of the vehicle and goods along with the specified e-way bill numbers, quashing any proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of, and any pending applications were also resolved by the Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
