Case Law Details
Sree Rama Steels Vs Deputy State Tax Officer (Telangana High Court)
The issue under consideration is whether ‘Noticing the conveyance at a wrong destination’ without anything more can be said to be a contravention of the CGST Act?
High Court states that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, the only reason assigned by the 1st respondent was that ‘wrong destination is noticed’. In the statement allegedly recorded on 27.1.2020 at 7.50 am from the driver of the vehicle transporting the goods, it is recorded that he is transporting the goods from Chegunta in Medak to Katedan, Hyderabad. ‘Noticing the conveyance at a wrong destination’ without anything more cannot be said to be a contravention of the CGST Act/Telangana GST Act,2017 and it is not an taxable event, for there could be several reasons for the same including the driver losing his way or stopping for repair or to answer a call of nature. Once the conveyance/vehicle driver had the tax invoice and the e-way bill, there is prima facie compliance with the provisions of the CGST Act and Telanaga GST Act and the rules made thereunder and it did not warrant initiating of proceedings under Sec.129 of the Telangana GST Act,2017. It is the case of petitioner that the purchaser of M/s.Laxmi Narasimha Constructions, Proddatur had requested the petitioner to deliver the goods at its job work site, i.e, M/s. JVS Switchgear LLP at Mailardevpally, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District in the State of Telangana, for converting the same into electric Tower parts so that transportation charges and time would be saved by such delivery directly by the transporter. No doubt, in the e-Way Bill, the place of delivery of the goods at the Job work site of the purchaser from the petitioner i.e., M/s. JVS Switchgear LLP at Mailardevpally, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District was not mentioned. But, in the Ex.P10 delivery challan dt.27.1.2020, the same was mentioned. According to 1st respondent, the vehicle being found at Katedhan, Hyderabad gave room for suspicion about the bona fides of the transaction instigating the 1st respondent to detain the vehicle. It was contended that the objections of petitioner were examined and found to be untenable for the reason that intention of petitioner was to unload the goods at Katedan, Hyderabad. According to him, there is a discrepancy of destination in the sense that the goods were being sent to a destination not mentioned in the invoice / e-Way Bill dt.26.01.2020. According to the 1st respondent, the e-Way Bill dt.27.01.2020 is issued subsequent to the detention of the vehicle and has to be therefore treated as a self-serving one and also as one created as an after-thought. HC are unable to accept the said contention. It is not as if when goods are in transit there is a prohibition of their sale by the purchaser to a third party. In fact the court can take judicial notice that it is quite a common thing and a well recognized trade practice.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
