2021 (10) TMI 1062 - HC - GST

Seizure of goods alongwith the conveyance - valid E-way bill or not - requirement of seeking extension of validity period of E-way bill - HELD THAT - There is a categorical finding by the learned Judge that the conveyance had reached the destination on 1.1.2019 at 11.00 p.m. which was well within the prescribed validity period under the E-way bill. The appellant-authorities contention that the consignment was being delivered on 2.1.2019 and therefore, the goods cannot be transported cannot be acceded to. The materials on record clearly indicates that the action by the authorities was taken at the destination and not during transit and therefore, an inference has to drawn that the conveyance had reached the destination well within the subsistence of the valid period stipulated under the E-way bill. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of E-way bills and extension period.
2. Interpretation of Rule 138(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
3. Applicability of the proviso to Rule 138(10) of CGST Rules.
4. Authority's power to issue notices under Section 129 of the Act.
5. Judicial review of appellate authority's decision.

Analysis:

1. Validity of E-way bills and extension period:
The case involved a dispute regarding the validity of E-way bills for motor vehicles dispatched from one location to another. The 1st respondent claimed that the conveyance carrying the vehicles reached the destination within the validity period of the E-way bills, but unloading took place the next day. The appellant argued that the goods cannot be transported without seeking an extension of the validity period of the E-way bill. However, the court found that the conveyance had reached the destination within the prescribed validity period, as per the provisions of Rule 138(10) of the CGST Rules.

2. Interpretation of Rule 138(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017:
The learned Single Judge interpreted Rule 138(10) of the CGST Rules, which prescribes the validity of E-way bills and allows for an extension of the validity period by eight hours after expiry. The judge concluded that the appellate authority should have considered the merits of the case in light of this rule, leading to the decision to allow the writ petition and quash the impugned order passed by the appellate authority.

3. Applicability of the proviso to Rule 138(10) of CGST Rules:
The appellant argued that the E-way bill had expired at midnight on a certain date and the respondent should have sought an extension as per the proviso to Rule 138(10) of the CGST Rules. However, the court found that the conveyance had reached the destination within the validity period, and the action by the authorities was taken at the destination, not during transit, indicating compliance with the E-way bill requirements.

4. Authority's power to issue notices under Section 129 of the Act:
The 1st respondent had received a notice under sub-clause (3) of Section 129 of the Act, leading to an appeal before the appellate authority. The court's analysis focused on the actions of the authorities at the destination and the timing of the conveyance's arrival, emphasizing that the goods had reached the destination within the valid period stipulated under the E-way bill.

5. Judicial review of appellate authority's decision:
The court, after meticulous examination of the facts and contentions presented, decided not to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The dismissal of the writ appeal was based on the finding that the conveyance had reached the destination within the prescribed validity period, as per the provisions of the E-way bill rules.