Case Law Details
Carpenters Classics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court addressed the legal dispute between Carpenters Classics India Pvt. Ltd. and the Assistant State Tax Officer, focusing on the intricacies of GST compliance and the procedural requirements for the transportation of goods across state lines. This case sheds light on the enforcement of GST rules, the responsibilities of businesses in generating and carrying e-way bills, and the judicial response to disputes arising from these obligations.
Background: Carpenters Classics India Pvt. Ltd., based in Bangalore, engages in importing, supplying, and installing kitchen cabinets. A consignment dispatched directly to customers in Thalassery and Kozhikode, bypassing the planned route through Ernakulam, was intercepted by the Assistant State Tax Officer due to the absence of a proper e-way bill for inter-state transport.
Legal Proceedings: The petitioner argued for the release of the detained goods, claiming compliance with GST regulations by generating the necessary e-way bill prior to dispatch. However, the goods were detained under Section 129 of the GST Act for not carrying the physical or electronic form of the e-way bill as required by Rule 138A. The court heard arguments emphasizing the need for a pragmatic approach over a strictly literal interpretation of the law, advocating for the promotion of business and entrepreneurial activity within the legal framework of the GST regime.
Court’s Decision: The Kerala High Court recognized the petitioner’s efforts to comply with GST regulations and acknowledged the absence of tax evasion intent. Nevertheless, it upheld the detention of goods by the Assistant State Tax Officer as a lawful act under Rule 138A. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory requirements for the provisional release of goods, stating that such issues should be addressed in detail by the State Tax Officer, focusing on the legality of the detention.
Conclusion: The court’s decision in Carpenters Classics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant State Tax Officer underlines the critical balance between regulatory compliance and the facilitation of commerce. It highlights the judiciary’s role in interpreting GST laws, ensuring that while the rigour of the law is maintained, there is room for consideration of practical business realities. This case serves as a reminder for businesses to meticulously follow GST regulations, especially regarding the transport of goods across state lines, to avoid legal complications and ensure smooth operations.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The petitioner, based at Bangalore, imports Kitchen cabinets, then, supplies and installs them in the houses of the customers, on their placing the orders. On 21.11.2018, the petitioner sent a consignment of three sets of kitchen cabinets to be installed in the houses of the customers in Thalassery and Kozhikode. The petitioner proposed to send them to Ernakulam and from there, it wanted to distribute to the customers at Thalassery and Kozhikode, through local conveyance. The petitioner thus claims to have generated the invoice and e-way bill at 5.57 PM on 21.11.2018 and dispatched the goods through a truck.
2. As the petitioner pleads, because of the customers’ demand and also as a matter of commercial experience, rather than route the consignment through Ernakulam, it sent the goods directly to the customers. En route, the Assistant State Tax Officer intercepted the goods and detained them. On his demand, the vehicle driver showed the invoices and e-way bills meant for intra-state transport, that is from Ernakulam to Thalassery and Kozhikode. He could not show the e-way bill from Bangalore to Ernakulam.
3. In response to the statutory notice issued, the petitioner submitted the Ext.P15 reply, besides pleading personally before the authorities for the release of the goods. But as the Assistant State Tax Officer persisted with the demand of statutory compliance under Section 129 of the GST Act, for the provisional release of the goods, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4. Sri K. N. Sreekumaran, the petitioner’s counsel has advanced his arguments laced with emotion and a bit of rhetoric, too. He stressed that despite the change in tax regime, the authorities still refuse to change their mind set. According to him, the authority’s literal approach is virtually stifling every industry and dampening the entrepreneurial spirit of the business people, as well.
5. Sri Sreekumaran also contends that even before the consignment could be dispatched from Bangalore, the petitioner generated the e-way bill online—and it is a verifiable fact. Though the driver carried the bill physically, as he is illiterate or semiliterate, he could not understand what the Assistant Tax Officer demanded. Perhaps panicked, he produced only the invoices and the local e-way bill, but not the e-way bill first generated for transporting the consignment from Bangalore to Ernakulam. Sri Sreekumaran also asserts that, viewed from any perspective, there is no tax evasion. Not even the authorities could entertain any such suspicion because the entire transaction is above board. He has fervently pleaded that it is a fit case where the Court should take a pragmatic view, instead of a pedantic one.
6. In response, Dr. Thushara James, the Government Pleader, has drawn my attention to Rule 138A of the GST Rules. According to her, though the e-way bill, once generated, could be verified on-line, the legislature and the executive in their wisdom have mandated under this Rule that the consignment should carry a copy of the e-way bill in physical form, or at least its number in the electronic form. Therefore, the Assistant State Tax Officer has detained the goods only in compliance with Rule 138A, she adds.
7. James has also submitted that after getting the goods provisionally released under Section 129(3) of the GST Act, in the adjudication by the State Tax officer, the petitioner can put forward all its defences and may avoid any fine or penalty.
8. Heard Sri K. N. Sreekumaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Thusahara James, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
9. Indeed, I reckon the petitioner may have a genuine grievance. I also accept that it may not have tried to evade any tax. And the transaction, in that sense, could have been above board. That said, I must also note that the Assistant State Tax Officer followed only the law—especially, Rule 138A. And that rule reads thus:
138A. Documents and devices to be carried by a person- in-charge of a conveyance.-(1) The person in charge of a conveyance shall carry-
(a) the invoice or bill of supply or delivery challan, as the case may be; and
(b) a copy of the e-way bill in physical form or the e-way bill number in electronic form or mapped to a Radio Frequency Identification Device embedded on to the conveyance in such manner as may be notified by the Commissioner:
Provided that nothing contained in clause (b) of this sub-rule shall apply in case of movement of goods by rail or by air or vessel: [Provided further that in case of imported goods, the person in charge of a conveyance shall also carry a copy of the bill of entry filed by the importer of such goods and shall indicate the number and date of the bill of entry in Part A of FORM GST EWB-01.
(2) A registered person may obtain an Invoice Reference Number from the common portal by uploading, on the said portal, a tax invoice issued by him in FORM GST IN V-1 and produce the same for verification by the proper officer in lieu of the tax invoice and such number shall be valid for a period of thirty days from the date of uploading
(3) Where the registered person uploads the invoice under sub-rule (2), the information in Part A of FORM GST EWB-01 shall be auto-populated by the common portal on the basis of the information furnished in FORM GST INV-1.
(4) The Commissioner may, by notification, require a class of transporters to obtain a unique Radio Frequency Identification Device and get the said device embedded on to the conveyance and map the e-way bill to the Radio Frequency Identification Device prior to the movement of goods.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of sub-rule (1), where circumstances so warrant, he Commissioner may, by notification, require the person-in-charge of the conveyance to carry the following documents instead of the e-way bill.
(a) tax invoice or bill of supply or bill of entry; or
(b) a delivery challan, where the goods are transported for reasons other than by way of supply.”
10. As the learned Government Pleader has rightly contended, if online generation of e-way bill suffices, the Rule would not have insisted on the consignment carrying a copy of the bill or the number in electronic form. At any rate, the issue now concerns only the provisional release and the statute provides an efficacious mechanism for that. Of course, the statutory compliance for the provisional release does visit on the petitioner with certain financial burden, as it has to produce the Bank Guarantee. But the pleas now the petitioner’s counsel has urged before me are the ones that deserve consideration on merits, when the State Tax Officer decides on the legality of detention.
11. I may add a word in response to the petitioner’s plea that the Court should adopt a pragmatic view rather than a pedantic one. True. But in the name of interim orders and in the name of our exercising judicial discretion at the threshold, we cannot afford to chip away at the statutory scheme—especially if the scheme has an economic efficacy. I do agree that under exceptional circumstances, we can soften the rigour of the law, but can ill afford to ignore the law. The issues the petitioner raised here are the ones to be considered on merits finally—but not at the threshold and definitely not as a prima facie factor.
Under these circumstances, preserving the petitioner’s right to advance all its pleas before the State Tax Officer, I dispose of the writ petition, holding that the authorities will release the goods if the petitioner complies with Section 129(3) of the GST Act.
Author Bio
