Case Law Details
Bon Cargos Private Limited Vs Assistant State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
Explanation 2 to Section 138 defines the consignment value of goods to be that declared in an invoice, a bill of supply or a delivery chalan including the goods and services tax payable with any Cess charged. Sub-Rule (1) read with Explanation 2 leads to only one inference that the consignment value has to be determined from the invoice. But when goods of the same consignment covered by multiple invoices exceed the limit of Rs.50,000/-, necessarily there should be generation of e-way bill. Otherwise the mandate for generation of an e-way bill would be defeated and rendered redundant enabling the consignors to issue any number of bills having value below Rs.50,000/- and consign them in one vehicle. The consignment value is that shown in the invoice. When goods of the same consignor covered by different invoices are consigned together in one vehicle; the value will be the total of that in the multiple invoices. We are hence not satisfied that the detention was without jurisdiction. As pointed out by the learned Senior Government Pleader in one case already an adjudication order is also passed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The identical appellant is before us challenging the judgment of a learned Single Judge refusing to interfere with two separate orders of detention. The learned Senor Government Pleader submits that the goods detained have already been released on Bank guarantee. Adjudication proceedings were commenced and in one of the cases, final order has been passed. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently argues that the proceedings initiated itself are without jurisdiction. The goods detained had a value of less than Rs.50,000/- and there is an exemption as available under Rule 138 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017.
2. Before we look at the provision, we have to notice the facts. In W.A. No.1735 of 2020, the detention was on 06.09.2020. The goods detained were covered by two invoices raised by the same consignor, one dated 04.09.2020 and the other dated 05.09.2020; respectively having value of Rs.33,748/-. The goods were carried together in one vehicle by the appellant, who is a Goods Transport Agency. There was no e-way bill accompanying the consignment.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
