2022 (7) TMI 1105 - HC - GST

ODC Vehicles Need Special Designation in E-way Bills to Calculate Proper Validity Periods

In this case, the HC addressed the validity of an E-way bill for an Over Dimensional Cargo vehicle. The court recognized that the GSTN portal lacks a ... Seeking release of seized goods - Expiry of validity of E-way bill - requirement to deposit of 25% of the disputed demand of penalty - HELD THAT:- Any amount that may have already been deposited by the petitioner shall be adjusted towards the amount required to be deposited under this order - The GSTN authority is required to consider the feasibility of providing an additional field in the online form to be filled by dealers/transporters to obtain E-way bill, such that an additional field may be provided to feed the vehicle type i.e. normal or ODC etc., as may allow for the validity of the E-way bill to be issued with appropriate validity printed on that form issued to the concerned. The above exercise if done may also allow for accurate tracking of vehicles and fewer disputes between the revenue authorities and the transporters with respect to validity period of E-way bills. Here, it may be noted, under Rule 138 of the UPGST Rules, the period of validity of an E-way bill has been provided on the basis of 100 Km of distance covered per day by an ordinary vehicle. Application disposed off. Issues:1. Validity of E-way bill for an Over Dimensional Cargo (ODC) vehicle.2. Feasibility of providing additional field in online form for E-way bill.3. Release of seized goods subject to deposit of penalty.Analysis:1. The petitioner's counsel argued that the ODC vehicle in question had a valid E-way bill issued on 25.03.2022, and the vehicle was stopped for checking on 02.04.2022. The vehicle was described as ODC, exceeding the dimensional limit under Rule 93 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. It was contended that as per Rule 138(10) of the UP GST Rules 2017, the E-way bill should have been valid for the vehicle. The petitioner's representative applied for a fresh E-way bill on 01.04.2022, but it was argued that this should not have any legal consequence. The court noted that the GSTN portal does not allow for the description of ODC vehicles while obtaining the E-way bill.2. The court directed the GSTN authority to consider the feasibility of including an additional field in the online form for E-way bill applications. This additional field would allow dealers/transporters to specify the vehicle type, such as normal or ODC, ensuring that the validity of the E-way bill reflects the type of vehicle. The court highlighted the importance of accurate tracking of vehicles and reducing disputes between revenue authorities and transporters regarding the validity period of E-way bills. It was noted that the validity of E-way bills is based on the distance covered per day, with different criteria for ordinary vehicles and ODC vehicles.3. The court ordered the release of the seized goods in favor of the petitioner, subject to the deposit of 25% of the disputed penalty amount under the order dated 13.04.2022. Any previously deposited amount by the petitioner would be adjusted towards the required deposit. This decision was made while awaiting the filing of counter affidavits and further proceedings in the case. The court emphasized the need for a systematic approach in handling E-way bills for different types of vehicles to ensure smooth operations and compliance with regulations.