AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 173
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 2nd respondent, and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or such other order or direction. (ii) Declare that action of the 2nd respondent in continuing with the detention of the vehicle of the petitioner and goods carried therein, consignment value per invoice of which, is below Rs. 50,000/- as being illegal, arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable and contrary to the statutory scheme (iii) grant such other and incidental reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and necessary on the facts and circumstances of this case. (iv) Allow this Writ petition (Civil) with costs to the petitioner." 2. Heard Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.M.M.Jasmine, learned Government Pleader....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....50,000/- on account of which, the petitioner duly updated Part B of the E-Way Bill for this particular invoice. However the remaining consignments were under the Rs. 50,000/- threshold and hence, there was no legal obligation on the petitioner, whatsoever, to update Part B of these invoices. Consignments are to be considered individually and not as a sum of all the goods carried in a conveyance and therefore, the detention of the Petitioner's vehicles and goods as also the arbitrary imposition of tax and penalty are unsustainable in the eyes of law. 5. The main contentions urged by the petitioner are as follows : (a) That the petitioner is challenging the continued detainment of its conveyance and the goods contained therein b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... MD14116/19-20, MD14134/19-20 and MD14139/19-20 dated 09.01.2020 respectively. The petitioner was engaged to transport such electrical goods from the Consignor to the Consignee. As per the Rule 138 of the CGST Rules, 2017, the generation of E-way bills is to ensure smooth facilitation of transportation of goods, wherein the consignment value exceeds Rs. 50,000/-. The consignor generated four E-Way Bills dated 09.01.2020 and numbered as 5311 5989 1857, 5911 5989 1206, 5711 5989 0364 and 5411 5989 6053, for transportation of such goods. The value of goods as per invoices amounted to Rs. 8036/- 37,552/-, 71,379/- and 10,726/- respectively. It is submitted that part A of such E-Way bill in FORM GST EWB-01 is to be raised by the Consignor, in ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at consignment, indisputably, the petitioner has updated both part A and part B of the E-way bill and in the case of all the other three consignments, the respective value of each such consignment is well below the threshold limit of Rs. 50,000/- and the consignor has indeed updated part A of the E-Way bill but transporter has not furnished part-B of the E-Way bill. Further that, grounds for detaining goods as noted by the 2nd respondent in the impugned Ext. P5 proceedings is as follows : "The consignor issued multiple invoices to the consignee to avoid generate e-way bill and evade tax. The consignor issued 3 invoices to the consignee on the same date is 09.01.2020". 9. Hence it is a deliberate attempt to escape from generating e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rter needs not generate e-way bill for consignments having value less than Rs. 50,000/- even if the value of the goods carried in single conveyance is more than Rs. 50,000/- till the said sub-rule is notified." 10. It is pointed out that the said stand of the department is substantially fully in favour of the petitioner, inasmuch as it is made clear that till Rule 138(7) is notified to be brought in force, the transporter need not generate e-way bills for consignments having value less than Rs. 50,000/-, even if the value of the goods carried in a single conveyance is more than Rs. 50,000/- . 11. Per contra, Smt. M.M.Jasmine, learned Government Pleader would argue that the said aspect born from page 2 of Ext.P7 may not be relevant inasmuc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on at the hands of the authorities while finalizing the adjudication proceedings in pursuance to Ext.P5 detention order. This Court is of the view that taking note of the nature of the course of action now projected before this Court, the case is only at the stage of detention of the goods and the vehicle concerned and therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the abovesaid rival contentions raised by both sides need not be resolved by this Court at this stage of the matter. 14. Accordingly, it is ordered that the 2nd respondent shall forthwith release the goods and vehicle detained pursuant to the impugned Ext.P5 detention order to the petitioner on the latter furnishing bank guarantee for the value of the amount of Rs. 20,274/....