Kurian Abraham Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Keralam State GST (GSTAT Thiruvananthapuram)
Summary : The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench, allowed the appeal of Kurian Abraham Pvt. Ltd. against a penalty of ₹38,556 imposed on a consignment of 7,560 kg of natural rubber latex valued at ₹3,85,560. The consignment was intercepted on 4 January 2022 without an e-way bill. Although accompanied by Delivery Challan No. 001/2021-22, it contained a GSTIN belonging to Anku Rubber, a registered dealer, leading the authorities to regard the transaction as a supply between registered persons.
The appellant maintained that the supplier, Arun Scaria, was an agriculturist transporting latex from his rubber estate at Karikayam, Chittar, to the appellant’s registered premises at Pannimattam. It relied on Kerala Notification No. 3/2018-State Tax dated 14 May 2018, which exempts qualifying intrastate movement of rubber latex from an agriculturist to a registered taxable person from the e-way bill requirement, irrespective of value, subject to a delivery challan or prescribed invoice.
The Revenue argued that the challan identified a registered dealer and no e-way bill accompanied goods worth more than ₹50,000. It characterised the agriculturist explanation as an afterthought, relied on immediate payment of the penalty without protest, questioned the evidence of agricultural cultivation, and submitted that the exemption conditions had not been proved. It also raised objections under Sections 112(2), 129(5) and 126 and cited Supreme Court decisions on strict construction of exemptions and procedural prejudice.
The Tribunal noted that Anku Rubber had denied supplying the consignment. Arun Scaria’s affidavit confirmed that he cultivated rubber on approximately 51.13 acres of leased plantation land, had no GST registration and had asked the appellant to prepare delivery challans on his behalf. He confirmed that the unrelated GSTIN had been inserted inadvertently.
On examining the notification, the Tribunal found that the goods moved from the agriculturist’s estate to the appellant’s registered premises and that the transporter carried the required delivery challan. The conditions for exemption from the e-way bill requirement were therefore satisfied, regardless of the consignment value.
The Tribunal further held that the mistaken GSTIN was a genuine clerical error because no evidence linked the appellant, supplier or transporter to the GSTIN holder. It condoned the error while advising the appellant to avoid similar mistakes that could create unnecessary doubts for tax authorities.
Accordingly, the Tribunal held the detention and penalty unsustainable, set aside the penalties under the appellate order dated 20 September 2022 and allowed the appeal with consequential relief. The two Supreme Court decisions appearing in the order were invoked in the Revenue’s submissions; the Tribunal’s operative reasoning instead rested on the notification, affidavits and documentary circumstances.
Cases Discussed
- Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Co. — (2018) 9 SCC 1 (Supreme Court). Cited by the Revenue for strict interpretation of exemption notifications; the Tribunal did not expressly adopt this precedent in its findings.
- State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma — (1996) 3 SCC 364 (Supreme Court). Cited by the Revenue on the requirement to establish prejudice from a procedural irregularity; the Tribunal did not expressly rely on it in its decision.
