In Assistant State Tax Officer (Intelligence), Alappuzha v. VST AND Sons (P.) Ltd [WA NO. 914 OF 2021 dated July 22, 2021], the current application has been filed by the Department following the Writ Petition WP(C). No. 22304 OF 2020(K) dated October 21, 2020 wherein the Hon’ble Kerala High Court had quashed notices which were issued by the Department against VST and Sons (P.) Ltd (Respondent).

Earlier, the Respondent (then petitioner) had filed a Writ Petition challenging the detention of “Range Rover” motor vehicle belonging to him which was being transported from Coimbatore to Thiruvananthapuram as “used personal effect” which had run 43kms of the Respondent. The same was detained on the ground that the motor vehicle was transported without the E-way Bill as contemplated under Rule 138 of the Kerala Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (“KGST Rules”). The Hon’ble Kerala High Court allowing the writ petition quashed the notices issued under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017(“CGST Act”). This order of the High Court has now been challenged in the current application.

E-way Bill not necessary for transporting personal effects including motor vehicles

The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the current application observed that the motor vehicle was detained only on the ground of not having E-way Bill. Under Rule 138(14)(a) of the KGST Rules the goods classifiable as used, personal and household effect are exempted from the requirement of E-way Bill.

Further, relied on the case of KUN Motor Company Private Limited and Others v. the Assistant State Tax Officer, Squad No.3 Kerala State, Goods and Service Tax Department and Others [(2019) 60 GSRT 144 (Kerala)], wherein was held that used vehicles, even if it has run only negligible distances, the motor vehicles are to be categorized as “used personal effect”.

Concurring with the observations made in the above case, the Hon’ble Kerala High Court noted since the facts of the present case is almost similar to the above-mentioned case and that appeal was dismissed in the relied upon case, the Court propounded that E-way Bill is not necessary for transportation of personal effects and as such detention under Section 129 of the CGST Act.

(Author can be reached at [email protected])

Author Bio

More Under Goods and Services Tax

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Search Posts by Date

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