Bon Cargos Private Ltd. Vs Union of India (Kerala High Court)
The High Court held that it is the duty of the transporter or the consignor, consignee to generate e-way bill when the aggregate value of the consignment is more than Rs. 50,000/- and if otherwise ie., less than Rs.50,000/- there is no such requirement is not acceptable.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
The prayers in the above W.P.(C.) are as follows :
(i) “call for the records leading to Exhibits P2, P3, P4 and P5 issued by the 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 appearing for the respondents.
3. The case set up in the W.P.(C.) is as follows :
That the petitioner is a Goods Transport Agency (GTA) registered under the GST Acts. On 10.01.2020, the conveyance/vehicle of the petitioner which was entrusted with the transportation of electrical good from M/s. G M Impex Pvt. Ltd. (Consignor) to M/s. Flower Electricals & Agencies, Attingal (the Consignee) was intercepted by the 2nd respondent. Pursuant to an inspection, the vehicle and the goods contained therein were detained by the 2nd respondent on the ground that Part B of the E-way bill that facilitates transportation of goods, was not updated, by the petitioner. The specific case of the petitioner is that the value of goods (which are distinct and having separate HSN numbers) as per invoices is less than Rs.50,000/- and therefore, there is no requirement of generation of E-way bills, going by Rule 138 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The 2nd respondent has proceeded to impose a fine and a penalty on the petition totaling up to Rs.20,274/- upon the payment of which only, the conveyance and the goods would be released.
4. That the action of the 2nd respondent is wholly arbitrary since Rule 138 of the CGST, Rules clearly prescribes that a transporter/GTA is required to update Part B of the E-Way bill only in the event that value of each individual consignment is above Rs.50,000/-. On the facts of the case, four invoices were raised by the Consignor of which only one was worth more than Rs.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 by the 2nd
(b) That the petitioner is also challenging the arbitrary imposition of tax and penalty by the 2nd respondent for want of Part B of the E-Way bill.
(c) That Part B of E-Way Bill in FORM GST EWB-01 is only required to be updated by a GTA if the value of each consignment if worth more than 50,000/-
(d) where the value of each consignment is below such amount, the petitioner cannot be held liable for not updating Part B since the statute imposes no such condition.
(e) The issuance of separate invoices are owing to the fact that the goods are of four distinct specifications for which one common invoice cannot be raised. Further, separate E-Way Bills with four distinct Part A’s were raised by the consignor. The transporter is required to raise Part B only to the corresponding Part A, value designation in which is more than Rs.50,000/-
(f) That the Act does not make any prescription that where the Consignor, the Consignee and the date of invoices are the same, one common invoice/E-Way Bill has to be raised. The goods here are distinct.
(g) That since there has been no statutory breach on the part of the petitioner, the conveyance and the goods may be released and the imposition of tax and liability, quashed.
6. It is urged by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the consignor supplied electric goods in different HSN code, and therefore, raised four separate invoices to the consignee. These invoices were numbered as MD14112/12-20, 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 accordance with Chapter XVI, Rule 138 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017. Rule 138(3) and the proviso thereunder, specifies that at his option, the registered person or transporter may generate and carry the E-Way Bill, even if the value of the consignment is less than Rs.50,000/-.
7. The specifications of the goods pertaining to each said invoices, its values and status has been given as a tabular column in para 4 on page 3 of the memorandum of W.P.(C.) which reads as follows :
