9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 242 - HC - GSTDetention of goods with vehicle - necessity of having TDS/e-way bill as the GST Council had exempted for carrying of e-way bill till 31.03.2018 - HELD THAT - As far as requirement of eway bill/TDS is concerned, the matter is no more res integra and has already settled by Division Bench of this Court in case of M/S GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD., L.G. ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD., BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED, M/S GUALA CLOSURES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., M/S. RAS POLYTEX PVT. LIMITED, RIMJHIM ISPAT LIMITED, RIMJHIM ISPAT LIMITED, M/S. GAURANG PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., M/S. ADITYA BIRLA FASHION AND RETAIL LTD., M/S. NAVYUG AIRCONDITIONING AND M/S. PROACTIVE PLAST PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND 02 OTHERS AND STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS 2018 (9) TMI 1261 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT followed by coordinate Bench of this Court in M/S H.B.L. POWER SYSTEMS LTD THRU AUTHORISED SIGNATORY VERSUS STATE OF U.P. THRU PRIN. SECY. DEPT OF TAX AND REGISTRATION AND ORS 2022 (8) TMI 49 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT . The Division Bench of this Court has held that on the basis of instructions of GST Council the requirement of having e-way bill till 31.03.2018 was dispensed with - the order passed by the first appellate authority requiring the petitioner to have e-way/TDS bill when the vehicle was detained on 03.03.2018 does not hold good and the order dated 10.12.2021 is set-aside to that extent. This Court finds that explanation furnished by the petitioner before the authorities as well as the first appellate authority was specific that it was used five to six times for transportation of raw material and it was not a finished product which was transported by the petitioner where requirement of new bags arises - the explanation afforded by the petitioner appeals to the Court and the finding recorded by the fist appellate authority does not hold any ground, in view of the said fact, the order passed by the first appellate authority in appeal is hereby set-aside. Petition allowed.
Issues:
Assailing order passed by first appellate authority under Section 129 (3) of UPGST Act read with Section 20 of IGST Act - Necessity of e-way bill/TDS for goods in transit - Interpretation of batch numbers on bags used for transportation - Refund of deposited amount before first appellate authority. Analysis: The writ petition challenged the order of the first appellate authority dated 10.12.2021, concerning the transportation of goods by a private limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act. The petitioner's goods, being raw material transported from Kutch, Gujarat to Haridwar, Uttarakhand, were intercepted on 03.03.2018 at Muzaffarnagar. Despite compliance with Section 129 (1) (a) of the Act, the first appellate authority dismissed the petitioner's appeal. Regarding the necessity of e-way bill/TDS, the petitioner argued that as per GST Council exemptions, there was no requirement for an e-way bill until 31.03.2018. The petitioner also explained the multiple uses of bags for transporting raw material, but the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal based on the presence of two batch numbers on the bags, indicating undeclared goods. The Court referred to previous judgments, including M/S Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P., establishing that the requirement of an e-way bill until 31.03.2018 was waived. Consequently, the first appellate authority's order mandating an e-way/TDS bill on 03.03.2018 was deemed invalid, and the order dated 10.12.2021 was set aside on that ground. Regarding the batch numbers on the bags, the petitioner's explanation that the bags were reused multiple times for raw material transportation was found valid. The Court concluded that the first appellate authority's decision lacked merit, leading to the setting aside of the order in appeal No. GST-0037/2020. The Court directed the refund of any amount deposited by the petitioner before the first appellate authority within fifteen days of producing a certified copy of the order. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, providing relief to the petitioner.
|
