Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2023 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 431 - HC - GSTSeeking road permit for transporting goods/forest products after obtaining e-way bills - petitioner contends that in spite of having e-way bills, the respondents were demanding road permit which, according to the petitioner, is wholly illegal and unsustainable in law - HELD THAT - This Court had granted opportunity to the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions. Shri Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department has submitted that the issue regarding requirement of road permit even after obtaining the e-way bill is yet to be decided by the Government. He submits that presently, there is no insistence on road permit, if e-way bill is available. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is made out a case for interference and it is directed that if the petitioner is in possession of valid e-way bills, road permit should not be insisted upon it, however the petitioner is required to fulfill the other formalities in case, if the situation arises. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Dispute over the requirement of road permit for transporting goods/forest products after obtaining e-way bills post-GST implementation. Analysis: The petitioner raised concerns regarding the demand for a road permit by the respondents despite having valid e-way bills. The petitioner argued that the imposition of road permit was illegal post the abolition of check gates and introduction of e-way bills under the Goods and Services Act (GST). The Court considered the submissions and directed the respondents that if the petitioner possesses valid e-way bills, the insistence on a road permit should cease. However, the petitioner must still fulfill other necessary formalities as per the specific transportation requirements. The Court acknowledged the complexity of transportation conditions, such as using railways for interstate transportation and complying with specific regulations like the blue water mark for timber. The learned Standing Counsel for the Forest Department informed the Court that the issue of requiring a road permit post obtaining e-way bills is pending a decision by the Government. Presently, there is no strict enforcement of road permits if e-way bills are available. However, the possession of e-way bills alone may not suffice, as additional conditions must be met for different types of transportation. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's compliance with other formalities may be necessary in certain situations, despite the relaxation on road permit enforcement. The Court's directive is contingent upon the Government's final decision on the necessity of road permits alongside e-way bills. In conclusion, the Court found merit in the petitioner's case and ruled in favor of the petitioner by directing that road permits should not be insisted upon if valid e-way bills are in possession. The Court's decision aimed to provide relief to the petitioner while ensuring compliance with any additional requirements that may arise in specific transportation scenarios. The writ petition was disposed of with the specified directions, subject to the Government's future determination on the road permit necessity in conjunction with e-way bills.
|