Issues relating to E-Way bill and important case laws on E-way bill by the Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court FROM 2018 TO 2022
INTRODUCTION
E-way bill or Electronic-way bill is a document introduced under the GST regime that needs to be generated before transporting or shipping goods worth more than INR 50,000 within state or inter-state. The Government vide Notification No. 09/2018- Central Tax dated 23.01.2018 notify www.ewaybillgst.gov.in as the Common Goods and Services Tax Electronic Portal for furnishing the eway bill. This website will be managed by the National Informatics Centre, Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology, Government of India. From 01.04.2018, the inter-State movement of goods for a value beyond Rs. 50,000/-,need to have the e-way bill. The assesse will have to look in to the movement of goods whether inter-State or intra-State and accordingly follow the procedures of CGST or SGST Act. For generation of EWB within the State, the threshold will be as per SGST Act
Every registered person who causes movement of goods of consignment value exceeding fifty thousand rupees—
(i) In relation to a supply; or
(ii) For reasons other than supply; or
(iii) Due to inward supply from an unregistered person,
shall, before commencement of such movement, required to generate an E-Way bill. The person in charge of a conveyance carrying any consignment of goods of value exceeding Rs. 50,000/- should carry a copy of document viz., invoice/bill of supply/ delivery challan/ bill of entry and a valid eway bill in physical or electronic form for verification.
The EWB contains the entire details of the consignment like Name, Address and GSTIN consignor and consignee. It also has the details of commodity consigned, quantity consigned and value consigned. The details of movement of goods is also mentioned in the e-way bill. The registered dealers under GST can generate e-way bill as a supplier or as a recipient of the goods.
An EWB contains two parts – Part A to be furnished by the registered person who is causing movement of goods of consignment value exceeding INR 50,000/- and Part B (transport details) is to be furnished by the transporter. Where the goods are transported by a registered person, whether as consignor or recipient, the said person shall have to generate the EWB (by furnishing information in Part A on the common portal). Where the EWB is not generated by the registered person and the goods are handed over to the transporter for transportation of goods by road, the registered person shall furnish the information relating to the transporter on the common portal and the e-way bill shall be generated by the transporter on the said portal on the basis of the information furnished by the registered person in Part A of FORM GST EWB-01
In a nutshell, EWB is to be generated by the consignor or consignee himself (if the transportation is being done in own/hired conveyance or by railways or by air or by vessel) or the transporter (if the goods are handed over to a transporter for transportation by road). Where neither the consignor nor consignee generates the EWB and the value of goods is more than INR 50,000/- it shall be the responsibility of the transporter to generate-
Penal provisions in terms of Section 129 of CGST Act 2017,
where any person transports any goods or stores any goods while they are in transit in contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, then all such goods and conveyance would be liable to detention or seizure and after detention or seizure, on payment of penalty which is presently the applicable tax and penalty equal to 100% GST payable on such goods, such goods detained can be released.
In the case of exempted goods, the penalty would be 2% of the value of goods or Rs.25,000 whichever is less. If the owner does not come forward, then the goods can be released on payment of applicable tax and a penalty equal to 50% of the value of the goods reduced by the tax amount paid. This provision is amended through Finance Act, 2021 to levy a penalty equal to 200% of the tax payable on such goods in case of taxable goods where the owner of the goods comes forward for payment of such penalty. In other cases, a penalty would be equal to 50% of the value of the goods or 200% of the tax payable on such goods, whichever is higher. However, this provision would come into effect on notification to give effect to this provision.
Important case laws on E-Way bill issues from 2018 to 2022
Non entering of vehicle number in Part-B of e-Way Bill – violation of the provisions of Section 68 read with Rule 138 of the CGST Act, 2017. – It is mandatory to file Part-B including vehicle Number before the goods are loaded in the vehicle.
Incomplete e-way bill – Part-B not uploaded and carrying printout. – The petitioner shall provide the bank guarantee for the tax & penalty & bond for the value of goods and get the goods provisionally released.
Rai Prexim India Private Limited Vs State Of Kerala (High Court Kerala) WP(C): 39022 of 2018,
Minor errors not be capitalized to collect the penalty In the case of Rai Prexim India Private Limited Vs State Of Kerala (High Court Kerala) WP(C): 39022 of 2018, the high court held that if a human error which can be seen on the naked eye is detected, such human error cannot be capitalized for penalisation. In this case, the taxpayer has wrongly mentioned the amount as Rs.388220 instead of Rs.3882200 with all other correct information. It is also relevant to note that CBIC circular no.64/38/2018-GST, dated 14-9-2018 was issued allowing few minor issues with a lesser penalty of not exceeding Rs.1000/-. There are specified situations provided in the circular which does not cover the error in the value. Therefore, if there are any other errors that are ‘minor’ in nature, then a decision can be relied upon.
Axpress Logistics India (P.) Ltd. V. Union of India [2018]
The goods were being booked and transported from Panvel Raigarh, Maharashtra to M/s. Bosch Ltd. Local Distribution Centre Khasra No. 1482 NH 56 B Jaiti Kheda, Lucknow, which is a registered dealer. The goods proceeded on 24-3-2018 to be delivered at Lucknow and in between, the Competent Authority of Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Department had seized goods of assessee under transport from Maharashtra to Uttar Pradesh as well as vehicle on ground that goods were not accompanied by E-way bill.
Held that: E-way bill under the UPGST Act has been downloaded by the petitioner, much before the detention and seizure of the goods and the vehicle, disclosing all the necessary information. We find no irregularity in the present transaction and, therefore, the seizure order as well as penalty notice dated 28-3-2018 issued under sections 129(1) and 129 (3) of the Act as well as the consequential proceedings are hereby set aside.
VSL Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. And Another (APRIL 13, 2018)
Non Generation of Part B of EWB cannot be a ground for interception whether detention and seizure warranted where the transport was under proper documentation and only vehicle details were not noted in Part-B of the e-way bill? It was held that merely non mentioning of the vehicle no. in Part-B cannot be a ground for seizure of the goods, the order of seizure is totally illegal and once the petitioner has placed the material and evidence with regard to its claim, it was obligatory on the part of the authorities to consider and pass an appropriate reasoned order. In this case, no reasons are assigned nor any discussion is mentioned in the impugned order of seizure and notice of penalty. The seizure and show cause notice were quashed and the goods / vehicle were directed to be released.
Modern Traders Vs State of UP, Writ Tax No. 763 of 2018, the Allahabad high court
No seizure if waybill produced after interception but before the seizure In the case of Modern Traders Vs State of UP, Writ Tax No. 763 of 2018, the Allahabad high court held that when the e-way bill was produced on the same day of the interception of goods along with documents indicating payment of GST, however before the seizure order is passed, there is no justification for passing orders of seizure and levy of penalty. Sometimes, goods may be transported without accompanying the e-way bill inadvertently, then in such cases also waybill can be generated before seizure order relying on this decision. However, it is important to prove the authenticity of the transaction.
Ram Charitra Ram Harihar Prasad Vs State of Bihar (Patna High Court) WP No.11221 of 2019
Expiry of the waybill and issuing fresh waybill before detention order In the case of Ram Charitra Ram Harihar Prasad Vs State of Bihar (Patna High Court) WP No.11221 of 2019
The high court held that when the waybill provisions allow to extend the validity period of the e-way bills on its expiry after updating the details in part B of form GST EWB-01 and there is no bar on generating the waybill on expiry of waybill which is before the detention order, there is no default. This decision would be useful in the case where there is an expiry of the waybill which is not extended within the allowed time. A new waybill can be generated. Even in this case, it would be important to prove the authenticity of the transaction and payment of tax wherever applicable.
Tvl. R K Motors Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court) WP (MD)No. 1287 of 2019
Seizure of goods as the goods delivered to a different place than specified
In the case of Tvl. R K Motors Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court) WP (MD)No. 1287 of 2019, the high court held that when there is no intention to evade tax, the officers should have guided the driver to take the goods to the destined location instead of being harsh and vindictive.
The court also expressed that when the petitioner is a registered dealer and the tax in respect of the goods have already been remitted, and when the transportation of goods is duly covered by proper documentation, the respondent officer ought to have taken a sympathetic and indulgent view of the lapse committed by the driver of the vehicle in taking goods to a different place.
This decision would also be relevant when there is a requirement to change the place of delivery at the last movement. There are many other decisions of the high court wherein procedural lapses have been condoned after genuineness of transactions were proved with no intention to evade taxes
Minor difference in address cannot be ground for detention and penalty.
Competent Authority had detained goods of assesse under transport as well as vehicle on ground that address shown in invoice was different from address shown in E-Way bill He further issued on assesse a notice under section 129(3) specifying amount of tax and penalty payable for release of goods and vehicle.
It was held that the address shown in the invoice is different from the address shown in the E-Way bill etc. is only a clerical mistake and is not a serious mistake which should justify the detention and penalty proceedings and It is ordered that the vehicle and goods detained shall be immediately released by the 1st respondent to the petitioner on his furnishing bank guarantee for the amounts
Wrongly Charging CGST and SGST in E-way bill instead of IGST cannot justify the detention.
Competent Authority had detained goods of assesse in transit from one State to another State as well as vehicle on ground that no IGST was collected in tax invoice and passed order demanding tax and penalty.
Assesse submitted that in the tax invoice the element of tax happened to be wrongly shown as CGST and SGST at the rate of 9 per cent as against IGST of 18 per cent. This was an inadvertent mistake committed by the new accountant of the supplier.
But in the E-Way bill the tax had been correctly declared as IGST Rs. 1.20 lakhs. It is ordered that the goods and vehicle shall be released forthwith by the 1st respondent to the petitioner, on his executing a simple bond and without insisting on the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee for the demanded value. Thereafter the 1st respondent will take necessary action to comply with the other directions for the finalization of the adjudication proceedings.
Typographic errors in E-way bill can be treated as minor Errors and cannot became the reason for interception.
Due to a typographic error while generating E-Way bill, petitioner mentioned approx. distance between Puducherry to Himachal Pradesh as 20 Kilometers instead of 2000 Kilometers, as a result of which, a validity of one day had been calculated by E-Way bill portal instead of twenty days. On very next day interception of consignment happened before reaching destination, and a penalty of equal to tax amount was imposed.
As per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court, it appears that the mistake in entering distance in EWay bill is a typographic error and may be treated as a minor one. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant is accepted and the order of the Assistant Commissioner State Taxes & Excise-Cum proper officer Baddi Circle-II is set aside and the penalty of Rs. 500/- under SGST and Rs. 500/- under CGST u/s 125 of CGST/HPGST Act, 2017 is imposed on the Appellant in accordance to CBIC Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST, dated 14th September 2018
K.P. Sugandh Ltd vs State Of Chhattisgarh 53 dated 16 March 2020, WP No. 36 of 2020
Seizure of goods for reasons such as undervaluation, wrong classification In the case of K.P. Sugandh Ltd vs State Of Chhattisgarh 53 dated 16 March 2020, WP No. 36 of 2020, the high court held that goods cannot be seized for the wrong valuation though the officers have the option of intimating such mistake to assessing authority.
When the prescribed documents such as tax invoice and waybill are accompanying the goods at the time of interception with all correct details matching in records, goods cannot be seized.
This decision would be very relevant as there could be a situation wherein due to different valuation mechanisms there can be a difference or there could be cases where classification is wrong but the rate of GST is proper with no short payment of taxes.
A similar view was held in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court), W.P.(C) No. 5384 of 2020 where the high court held that the squad officer may intercept the goods and detain them for the purpose of preparing the relevant papers for effective transmission to the judicial assessing officers and nothing beyond.
Integrated Constructive Solutions v. ACST & E-Cum-Proper Officer [2020]
Competent Authority detained goods of assessee under transport on ground that vehicle No. at time of checking was PB10CT6249; whereas in E-way Bill vehicle No. was PB35Q8464 and initiated proceedings under section 129(3) – Assessee’s explanation before Competent Authority was that due to break down of vehicle No. PB35Q8464 goods had been shifted to new vehicle No. PB10CT6249 and updation of new vehicle in already generated E-way Bill could not be done due to weak internet connectivity – In between assessee had also updated Part-B of E-way Bill – However, Competent Authority vide order passed under section 129(3) imposed tax and penalty upon assessee amounting to Rs. 16.28 crores.
Held that: Since Competent Authority had passed order in a mechanical manner and had ignored corrected and updated E-way Bill as produced by assessee within two hours of detaining goods, tax and penalty imposed under section 129(3) was unsustainable. As assessee had made procedural lapse and violated provisions of GST Act, it was liable to pay minor penalty under section 122.
Neva Plantation (P.) Ltd. v. ACSTE-CUM-PROPER OFFICER NORTH [2020]
The Assessee was engaged in supply of exempted goods – It sent a machine for repair to its supplier in a vehicle and issued delivery challan – In delivery challan it was specifically mentioned that ‘not for sale’ and ‘only for repair’ – Competent Authority intercepted said machine and having found that E-way Bill had not been generated for movement of machine detained machine and imposed tax and penalty under section 129(3) upon assessee.
Held that: The assessee had transported machine without the cover of proper documents (E-way Bill was one of them). Hence the assessee had violated provisions of the CGST Act/Himachal Pradesh GST Act. For violating provisions of the Act, it would be liable to pay penalty under section 122(1). The tax and penalty imposed upon the assessee under section 129(3) deserved to be set aside.
Veer Pratab Singh v. State of Kerala [2021]
The Authority had detained goods of assessee under transport and also vehicle on ground that consignment in question was accompanied by a tax invoice and an e-way bill showing payment of IGST as also transportation of goods was from Coimbatore to Gujarat, however evidence had been obtained that suggested that loading of consignment was effected in Palakkad – Thereafter, an order of confiscation was passed under section130, confiscating goods and vehicle.
Held that: The petitioner had admitted his liability to IGST by declaring the same in the invoice, and if the goods, even assuming that they were loaded from Palakkad, were destined to Gujarat, it is the IGST that had to be paid by the 1st petitioner/consigner of the goods. To that extent, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any intention to evade payment of tax because the tax liability, in either event, would be the same. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners under section130 of the GST Act, cannot be legally sustained.
The petitioner has challenged the Order No.2 dated 27.05.2020 [Annexure 7 to the Writ Petition] passed by the Superintendent of State Tax, Churaibari Enforcement Wing, North Tripura. By the said order, the liability of the petitioner of paying the CGST and SGST has been determined @Rs.3,56,990/-. Moreover, since the petitioner could not produce the valid e-way bill against the vehicle by which the consignment relating to invoice No SGIEL/19- 20/161, an aggregate penalty of Rs.3,56,990/-, equivalent to the tax payable, was imposed. Before imposing such tax, the taxing authority issued notice to the petitioner under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, Section 68(3) of the UTGST Act, 2017 and Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2019 asking why a proceeding under the provisions of Central WP(C) 317 of 2020 Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, State/ Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States)Act, 2017 shall not be initiated. The notice is quite in detail. Except the part of not- tendering the e-way bill for the goods in movement, no controversy has been raised in respect of the other descriptions including the invoice no, rate of tax under Central GST Act or State GST Act. The petitioner by filing the reply on 21.05.2020 has stated that for two vehicles used consecutively, the valid e-way bills were generated, but due to sudden lock down the consignment could not be brought into the State of Tripura within the time. Even they could not generate a new e-bill against a new vehicle where as the petitioner was compelled to cause trans-shipment as the earlier vehicle got completely broken down while stranded for the nationwide lock-down. The petitioner has also stated that they made an attempt to have the amended e-way bill, but as the system was not approached within the valid time i.e. within 24 hrs of the expiry date, the system refused to generate a fresh e-way bill at their instance. As a result, when the vehicle was detained in the Churaibari check post, the vehicle was not carrying the valid e-way bill.
It was held that the breach definitely falls within the ambit of Section 122(xiv) of the CGST Act and as such the petitioner is excisable to the penalty. But the pertinent question that falls for consideration is whether the Superintendent of State Tax has exceeded his jurisdiction in imposing the penalty? Having read the provisions of imposing penalty as provided under Section 122 of the CGST Act, we are of the view for the breach which falls under Section 122(xiv), the penalty is fixed @Rs.10,000/-. So far the penalty for an amount equivalent to tax is concerned those are for the incidents when the tax is sought to be evaded or not deducted under Section 51 etc. The other incidences as cataloged in Section 122 of the CGST Act are not relevant to the present case and as such we are of the firm view that the Superintendent of State Tax has exceeded his jurisdiction while imposing the penalty. The penalty would have been Rs.10,000/-. As there is no dispute about the tax, we will not lay our hands on that aspect. Mr. Majumder has categorically stated that the petitioner has paid the said tax. We are also not accepting that statement on the face of it. The revenue authority shall be at liberty to verify that fact to ascertain whether tax has been paid or not. In the event of non- payment of tax the appropriate action be taken for realizing the said tax from the petitioner. But in the circumstances, we set aside the order of penalty and direct the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs. 10,000/- as penalty for the breach which is covered under Section 122(xiv) of the CGST Act within a period of 1 month from today. If not paid, the action as prescribed by the statue be followed for realizing the same.
Hemanth Motors v. State of Karnataka, [2021]
The Assessee purchased certain goods from a dealer located at Husur, Tamil Nadu under tax invoice dated 31-12-2018 – Said dealer dispatched goods to business premises of assessee situated at Bengaluru after generating e-way bill – E-way bill was valid from 31-12-2018 to 1-1-2019 – Conveyance carrying goods reached at assessee’s business premises on 1-1-2019 before expiry of validity of e-way bill but goods could not be unloaded on same day and were being unloaded on next day, i.e., on 2-1-2019 – In meanwhile Competent Authority visited business premises of assessee and taking view that e-way bill had to be valid even at time of inspection when goods were being unloaded from conveyance passed an order under section 129(3) and raised demand upon assessee – Appellate Authority dismissed appeal filed by assessee.
Held that: There is no dispute that the conveyance had reached the place of destination well within the expiry of e-way bills, and the conveyance was being unloaded without any further transit. The appellate authority should have considered the merits of the proceedings against the petitioners in the light of the provisions of rule 138(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 which prescribes the validity of an e-way bill with the extension of further period by eight hours after the expiry. The failure to consider the petitioner’s case in the light of the provisions of rule 138(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 has resulted in an improper and untenable order.
Telangana HC in the case of Vijay Metal Vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Whether it is mandatory that when a truck is carrying goods of TWO e-Way Bills then it has to unload the goods of shorter distance first and then the goods of longer distance or goods of higher weight first and then goods of lesser weight?
The petitioner is a trader in steel registered under the CGST Act, 2017 having registered office at Ranigunj, Secunderabad. The petitioner in the course of business purchased stainless steel pipes and tubes from M/s. Santosh Steel and Pipes India Private Limited, Dadra, and Nagar Haveli. The petitioner hired M/s. Anmol Parcel Services for transporting the material from Dadra and Nagar Haveli to Secunderabad.
The said transporter also booked the material of M/s. Simi Steels, Adoni, Kurnool District from the same vendor M/s. Santosh Steels, Dadra, and Nagar Haveli to its business premises at Adoni, Kurnool District. For carrying the material to these two destinations, one at Secunderabad and the other at Adoni, two waybills were generated, one from Dadra and Nagar Haveli to Secunderabad for a travel of 867 kms. and the other from Dadra and Nagar Haveli to Adoni which is at a distance of 940 kms.
The answer is certainly NO. There is no law/rule which says that the goods to be unloaded at a shorter distance must be offloaded first or the goods of higher weight to be unloaded first. Unless there is something on record to prove that there was Bad Intention or intent to evade tax, such action of detention is bad in law and therefore cannot sustain.
ACST v. Satyam Shivam Papers (P) Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 115, decided on 12-01-2022]
Traffic blockage due to agitation, failure to deliver consignment within validity period of e-way bill; SC imposes cost of Rs. 59000 on Sales Tax Officer for illegally imposing penalty
The respondent-petitioner, a Private Limited Company had made an intra-State supply of paper to M/s. Sri Ayappa Stationery and General Stores and had also generated an e-way bill dt.04-01-2020. The goods were delivered to a transporter for making delivery to the consignee by an auto trolley however, due to Anti CAA protest traffic was blocked and the auto trolley driver could not make the delivery, next day being Sunday the driver took the trolley for delivery on the next working day, i.e. 06-01-2020.
It was the case of the petitioner that the auto driver was wrongfully detained by the Deputy State Tax Officer alleging that the validity of the e-way bill had expired proposing to impose tax and penalty. The petitioner revealed that the paper boxes were unloaded by the appellant-respondent at a private premises in the house of respondent’s relative without tendering any acknowledgment of receipt of detention of the goods in his custody, and subsequently, the auto trolley driver was released.
Considering that there was no material before the appellant-respondent to come to the conclusion that there was evasion of tax by the petitioner merely on account of lapsing of time mentioned in the e-way bill because even the appellant-respondent did not say that there was any evidence of attempt to sell the goods to somebody else on 06.01.2020, the High Court had held that on account of non-extension of the validity of the e-way bill by petitioner or the auto trolley driver, no presumption could be drawn that there was an intention to evade tax.
The High Court had set aside the levy of tax and penalty of Rs. 69,000 and imposed costs of Rs. 10,000 on the appellant-respondent payable by the petitioner within four weeks. Deprecating the conduct of the appellant-respondent and blatant abuse of power in collecting from the petitioner tax and penalty both under the CGST and SGST and compelling the petitioner to pay Rs.69,000, the High Court remarked.
Smart Roofing Private Limited Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
The petitioner/assessee challenged the order in Form GST Mov-9 seeking to impose a penalty of Rs.5,00,774 under Section 129(3) of the CGST ACT 2017.
The petitioner had consigned the goods from its main place of business, which was not the additional place of business, as per the original registration certificate obtained by the petitioner. However, in the E-way bill and the delivery Challan, the petitioner had declared the consignee as 130 Ring Road, Chintamani, Madurai, though the consignment was meant to be discharged at its new place of business. Under these circumstances, the consignment along with the lorry, was detained.
The petitioner submitted that there was no intention to evade tax as the petitioner had generated an E-way bill by declaring the consignee as its additional place of business.
The petitioner stated that he amended the registration ex post facto, i.e., on the date of the registration, by including Sastha Mombalan Modern Rice Mill 3/237-B, Chintamani Road, Anuppandi, Madurai, Tamil Nadu 625 009 as an additional place of business. It was submitted that the imposition of a penalty.
The court noted that the authorities were justified in detaining the goods inasmuch as there was a mistake in the E-way bill. However, the facts indicates that the consignor and the consignee are one and the same entity, namely, the Head Office and the Branch Office. In this case the petitioner has a new place of business, but has not altered the GST registration. However, steps have been taken to ex post facto include the new place of business in the GST registration. The registration certificate was also amended.
The court observed that there was only a technical breach committed by the petitioner and there was no intention to evade tax. The court quashed the order and allowed this writ petition by directing the respondent to release the vehicle and the consignment to the petitioner, if if it has not been released already.
Authors name: M.S. VIJAYAKUMAR | Qualification: M.COM. B. ED.M.B.A.M. PHIL.HDNC., | OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER GST (RETD.) | Location: MADURAI TAMILNADU.
Author can be reached in 9442022874;8838052001 [email protected]; [email protected]
Author Bio
Transporter Coolie used my E-way bill to deliver some other person goods due to which my e way bill was already approved by the gst officer at 5 pm. under suspicion the officer seized the orginal goods from Railway station under my E-way bill. I don’t no who is at fault here . As my supplier has generated proper multi vehicle e way bill. our e-way bill has proper part a and part b filled along with vehicle number. please help me to solve this issue.
what we do if we received notice duplicate e-way bill for same invoice
We had moved goods from one state to other in two trucks with multi vehicle eway bill option. The mobile squad intercepted one truck and said that the material is not as per invoice and as per no of boxes in eway bill hence they will recover 200% penalty. we told that items in our supplies have multiple sub components which are assembled to make the compete system hence unless you look at the both the trucks the genuineness can not be verified. the department is refusing to take into consideration the send truck and has issues show cause notice. what should we do?
you can file appeal and get relief or otherwise you can file a writ appeal also definitely you can get relief
E WAY BILL VALIDITY FOR FOLLOWING SITUATION: MATERIAL BOOKED AGAINST CONSIGNEE COPY, DOCUMENTS THROUGH BANK OR DELIVERY AGAINST COLLECTION OF PAYMENT FROM CUSTOMER.
IN ALL THE CASES MENTIONED ABOVE E WAY BILL IS EXPIRED BEFORE DELIVERY OF GOODS. E WAY BILL CAN NOT BE REGENERATED ON SAME DOCUMENTS TWICELY IN ANY CONDITION, FEW CUSTOMER NOT ACCEPT THE GOODS IF E WAY BILL EXPIRED. TRANSPORTER KEEPT THE GOODS AT TRANSHIPMENT PREMISES TILL HE RECEIPT CONFIRMATION FOR DELIVERY FROM CUSTOMER. PLEASE ADVISE HOW TO COVER TRANSIT RISKS IN SUCH SITUATION.
Good collection of case law on the subject of E way BILL. It will be helpful
Sir,
In some companies /show rooms goods taken by the customer themselves and goods delivered in various days but billed on Month end . In these situations how can generate the E way bill . Because just a memo only issued during each delivery but rate and total has been arrived on month end . Because each day more than 100 delivery will be made then how can generate the E Way bill for each movement ?
Good analysis
this article is like from the horses mouth – i wish the author long life and more such writings.