Asianet Digital Network (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant State tax Officer, Thiruvananthapuram  100 taxmann.com 379 (Kerala)
The petitioner is a cable TV and Internet services provider. It purchased a few Set Top Boxes. The conveyance was intercepted on 14th November 2018 on account of mismatch between the delivery challan and the e-way bill. The value of goods noted in the e-way bill is Rs. 10,04,888/-, whereas in the delivery challan, it is 3,20,000/-.
- Contention by the Appellant
The E-way bill correctly reflected value of the goods. However, although a single delivery challan was prepared by the appellant but set-top boxes were shown in two entries separately. The first entry comprised of 200 boxes, and corresponding value was shown as Rs. 3,20,000/-. In the second Entry of 600 boxes, value was shown as zero due to computer error. The appellant argued that once e-way bill has shown correct value and even if the delivery challan shows incorrect value, there cannot be any presumption regarding any suppression.
It was further contended since the petitioner was transferring stock from one point of its business to another, for its own use within state, therefore he is not liable to pay any tax. Thus, by the same reckoning, Section 129 does not apply.
- Contention by the Department
The defence put forward by the petitioner needs to be advanced before State Tax officer and if the petitioner wants an interim release of goods, he has to comply with Section 129(1)(a) of the GST Act. The department contended that in compliance of provisions of Section 129(1)(a) of CGST Act, 2017 petitioner should submit bank guarantee and bond for entire value of 800 Set Top Boxes even though value and quantity of 200 Set Top Boxed was correctly mentioned.
Petitioner needs to comply with the provisions of Section 129(1)(a) of CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner has shown quantity and value of 200 set-top boxes correctly in the delivery challan. However, for remaining 600 boxes only, incorrect value was mentioned in the delivery challan therefore, subject to further adjudication of issue before State Tax Officer, petitioner needs to provide a bank guarantee and personal bond under Section 129(1)(a) for the amount to be confined to 600 set-top boxes.
The Judgement is significant in respect of the conclusion that Bank Guarantee and Bond in compliance of Section 129(1)(a) of CGST Act, 2017 needs to be submitted only in relation to goods for which there is mismatch in E-way Bill and Delivery Challan and not for the goods for which there is no mismatch in the quantity and value of goods in E-way Bill and Delivery Challan.