Case Law Details

Case Name : P. H. Muhammad Kunju And Brothers Vs Assistant State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
Appeal Number : WP(C).No. 25943 of 2020(P)
Date of Judgement/Order : 25/11/2020
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All High Courts (6281) Kerala High Court (354)

P. H. Muhammad Kunju And Brothers Vs Assistant State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)

No detention on the ground that the value mentioned in delivery challan to job worker mis-matched with value mentioned in e-way bill from job worker

In a case where the goods were detained during transit since there was a mismatch between the value of goods mentioned in the delivery challan (issued by the principal earlier while sending goods for job work) and the value shown in the e-way bill and the job work invoice on the return journey, i.e. from the job workers premises, the Kerala High Court has set aside the detention of the goods. The Court observed that both job work invoice as well as e-way bill (for return journey) specified the correct quantity and description of goods and that there was no doubt on identity of the goods transported. It noted that the difference in value shown in the e-way bill and the delivery challan was only for maintaining uniformity between the e-way bill and the job work invoice.

FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P7 notice issued in FORM GST MOV-7 detaining a consignment of goods that was being transported from Salem to Ernakulam. The goods in question were detained at Walayar on 10.11.2020 and the reason for detention is seen as a mis-match in the value of the goods transported, as shown in the e-way bill and job work invoice that accompanied the transportation of the goods.

2. The facts in the writ petition would reveal that a consignment of HR plates was sent from Ernakulam to Salem for the purposes of job work. The onward transportation from Ernakulam to Salem was duly accompanied by a tax invoice and an e-way bill generated by the petitioner herein, and the goods in question reached Salem where they were subjected to job work by the job worker. After completion of the said work, the goods were returned to Ernakulam from Salem, and in the said leg of transportation, the consignment was accompanied by a job work invoice issued by the job worker in Salem as also an e-way bill generated by the job worker. The defect pointed out by the respondent is in respect of the e-way bill that accompanied the transportation from the job worker’s premises in Salem to the petitioner in Ernakulam. It is stated that the value shown in the e-way bill is only Rs.3469.76/- whereas, the consignment of the MS plates that was sent for job work was valued at Rs.8,27,708.87/-. The said difference in the value is shown as the reason for the detention as the value shown in the e-way bill did not match the value of the consignment itself.

3. I have heard Sri. A. Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I am of the view that inasmuch as the detention of the goods was during the return journey from the job-workers premises to the petitioner’s premises, the documents that ought to have accompanied the transportation were the job work invoice, the delivery challan and the e-way bill. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the consignment was covered by the job-work invoice, an e-way bill as also the delivery challan that originally accompanied the goods on its transportation from Ernakulam to the job worker’s premises in Salem. As per the statutory provisions, when goods are sent to other premises for job work, it is the same delivery challan that has to accompany the transportation for the onward and return journey as well. At any rate the objection of the respondents is only with regard to the value shown in the e-way bill that accompanied the goods on its return journey. In that context, it has to be noticed that the value shown in the e-way bill on the return journey had to correspond with the value shown in the invoice raised by the job worker, and the rate of Rs. 3469.76/- shown in both the documents was the actual consideration paid to the job worker for the job work done on the goods sent to him by the petitioner. It is also relevant to note that in the e-way bill as also the job work- invoice, the quantity of the goods is correctly shown as 15,490 Kgs and the description of goods is also shown as ‘HR plates’. In as much as there could be no doubt with regard to the identity of the goods that were being transported, and the difference in the value shown in the e-way bill (from that shown in the original delivery chalan) was only on account of the requirement of maintaining uniformity in the value shown in the tax invoice raised by the job worker and the e-way bill generated by him, I am of the view that the detention in this case was wholly unjustified. Accordingly, I allow this writ petition by quashing Exts.P5,P6 and P7 and directing the respondents to release the goods and the vehicle to the petitioner on his producing a copy of this judgment before the respondent. The learned Government Pleader shall also communicate the gist of this judgment to the respondent for facilitating an early clearance of the goods and the vehicle.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Goods and Services Tax

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

January 2021
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031