Skip to content

#GSTCase-182-Round Up of E-Way Bill cases for February 2020

JMK Solar Energies (P.) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [2020] 116 taxmann.com 10 (Gujarat); [2020] 116 taxmann.com 38 (Gujarat); Vivek Ramvilas Bansal v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax

Issue- Challenge to Validity of Proceedings initiated under Section 130 of CGST Act, 2017

Held:- Pursuant to earlier interim order, petitioner had paid requisite amount against notice issued under Section-129 determining amount to be paid towards tax and liability and conveyance and goods were released,. However, later, a show-cause notice came to be issued under section 130 of the Act calling upon writ-applicant to show-cause why goods and conveyance should not be confiscated.

Hon’ble Court directed that since matter is now at the stage of MOV-10, writ-applicant was to before authority and file an appropriate reply to make good his case that notice issued in GST-MOV-10 deserves to be discharged. It shall be open for writ-applicant to place reliance on recent pronouncement in case of Synergy Fertichem (P.) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [2019] 103 taxmann.com 426/77 GST 641 (Guj.).

Skipper Ltd. v. Union of India [2020] 116 taxmann.com 9 (Allahabad)

Held: By order dated 4th December, 2019, petitioner was required to furnish a bank guarantee equivalent to amount of his liability determined under section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 at the time of seizure of goods and conveyance in transit. It is beyond dispute that petitioner had furnished security in form of a bank guarantee of amount and in manner required of him by State Revenue Authorities, under section 129(1)(a) read with section 129(1)(c) of the UPGST Act, 2017, even prior to order dated 04-12-2019. Security in shape of bank guarantee remains deposited with State Revenue. The seized vehicle and goods have been released on strength of such security deposit. Hence, proceedings taken out under section 129 of UPGST Act, 2017 are liable to be concluded in view of section 129 (5) of the UPGST Act, 2017. The Revenue Authorities are directed to adjudicate the case on merits, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Commissioner,State Goods & Service Tax Department [2020] 115 taxmann.com 212 (Kerala)

Issue-Part A of the E-way Bill generated but Part B not generated

Facts: Petitioner engaged in execution of work contract with Cochin Shipyard, challenged the proceedings initiated under section 129(3) of CGST Act. Notices were issued on premise that already purchased cranes working in Orissa were entrusted to the transporter – M/s. Zinka Logistics Solutions Pvt.Ltd for transportation to Kochi and in that respect, three separate delivery chalans were issued.

Contention of Petitioner-:

Petitioner had generated Part A of E-way Bill but Transporter had not filled Part B of Eway Bill-Petitioner generated e-way bills with Part A details in accordance with Rule 138 of the Central Goods Service Tax Rules, 2017. Pursuing aforementioned provisions of sub rule 1 of Rule 138 of Rules, it is a mandatory obligation upon a transporter to also fill the information in Part B of the Form GST e-way bill-01 (electronically). For the reasons that the transporter did not fill up that form, in other words, did not comply with the requirement of law in discharging the obligation, three trailers/vehicles while in the jurisdiction of Kochi were intercepted and retained by the Kochi Authorities.

By Virtue of Circular Dated 22nd December 2017, transaction was legible to tax- The alleged detention could not have been done under provisions of section 129 of Act, in view circular dated 22-11-2017 issued by Ministry of Finance whereby in respect of other items, including cranes in instant case has been referred to be exempted from the applicability of IGST in the absence of any ‘supply’. It is just like that if the owner of a crane is transporting his goods from one State to another State, on account of the availability of the work.

It can only be a case of minor penalty- It could be a case of minor penalty as envisaged under section 122 of the Act.

In this regard, replies in response to impugned notices have already been filed, but there is no adjudication even by the Commissioner i.e., higher officer, though submitted representation dated 24-1-2020 also.

Held-Petitioner to submit a bank guarantee in terms of provisions of section 129 of CGST Act for release of the vehicle. However, that would be without prejudice and subject to the outcome of the decision to be taken by the adjudicating authority. In case the petitioner furnishes the bank guarantee within a period of one week, seized trailers along with goods would be released in accordance with law.

Hanuman Trading Co. v. State of Gujarat [2020] 116 taxmann.com 488 (Gujarat); Maruti Traders v. State of Gujarat [2020] 116 taxmann.com 47 (Gujarat); Moon Traders v. State of Gujarat [2020] 116 taxmann.com 48 (Gujarat); Synergy Fertichem (P.) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [2020] 116 taxmann.com 221 (Gujarat)

Issue- Challenge to Validity of Proceedings initiated under Section 130 of CGST Act, 2017

Held:-Writ applicant had availed benefit of interim-order and got vehicle, along with goods released on payment of tax amount. Show cause notice has been issued under section 130 of Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. The proceedings shall go ahead in accordance with law. It shall be open for writ applicant to point out the recent pronouncement in case of Synergy Fertichem (P.) Ltd v. State of Gujarat [2019] 103 taxmann.com 426/72 GST 641. It shall be open for writ applicant to rely on observations made in paragraph Nos.99 to 104 of said judgment. The writ applicant should now make good his case that show cause notice, issued in GST-MOV-10, deserves to be discharged. In view of the above, this writ application stands disposed of.

Universal Scrap & Metals v. State of Gujarat [2020] 116 taxmann.com 150 (Gujarat)

Issue- Challenge to Validity of Proceedings initiated under Section 130 of CGST Act, 2017

Held: Proper officer was directed to immediately to look into application, preferred by writ-applicant in terms of Section 67(6) and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law. Exercise to be undertaken and complied within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. The general principles governing provisions of Sections 129 and 130 of the Act have been exhausted by this Court in the case of F.S. Enterprise v. State of Gujarat [2019] 111 taxmann.com 179/[2020] 32 GSTL 321. Keeping the aforesaid in mind, the authority concern shall proceed to pass an appropriate order, in accordance with law. It shall be open for the writ-applicant to make his case good before the authority for both, discharge of notice in GST-MOv-10 as well as release of goods, in exercise of powers under section 67(6) of the Act.

Sanjaybhai Laxmanbhai Gogara v. State of Gujarat [2020] 116 taxmann.com 231 (Gujarat)

Held: It appears that the writ-applicant availed the benefits of the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in accordance with law, and get the goods and vehicle released. This is a case in which the final order in Form GST-MOV-11 has been passed. In such circumstances, we relegate the writ-applicant to prefer an appeal, against such order, under section 107 of the Act, 2017.