2020 (11) TMI 110

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....while in transit, at Muthanga in Wayanad. In the writ petition it is the case of the petitioner that, the consignment in question was being transported under cover of an invoice (Ext.P3) generated by the petitioner in his capacity as purchaser of the goods, which showed the goods as attracting tax on reverse charge basis, and Ext.P5 e-way bill that was also generated by the petitioner,which showed the consignment as comprising of goods that were exempted from tax in as much as they fell under HSN code 910. The vehicle and the goods were detained, and Ext.P10 notice in FORM GST MOV-7 was issued to the petitioner wherein the objection was essentially with regard to the non-registration of the person making the interstate supply, as also the f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssion, I am of the view that in the instant case, the declaration by the petitioner in the e-way bill, as also before the respondent authorities, has consistently been that the purchase was effected from an agriculturist in Karnataka who, going by the provisions of Section 23 of the GST Act, is not required to get himself registered for the sale of agricultural produce. Even assuming that the respondents dispute the said contention of the petitioner, the remedy available to them is to proceed against the agriculturist in question, for not taking the registration as required under the applicable provisions of the Act. The non-registration of the consignor, or the alleged mis-classification of the goods under transportation, cannot be a groun....