2023 (4) TMI 157 - HC - GST

Transportation of goods - Documents to be carried in physical form or electronic form - Non-production of relevant documents (by person in charge of conveyance) - principal ground on which the petitioner was defeated before the appellate authority was that the petitioner could not produce the relevant invoices in physical form - Rule 138A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT - The expression used in the heading of the Rule 138A is clear that documents and devices to be carried by a person-in-charge of the conveyance which included under sub-Rule (1)(a), the invoice. It is trite that the provision in a taxing statute has to be construed strictly and no benevolent interpretation is available while construing taxing statute. When the said provision specifically provided for that documents and devices to be carried by the person-in-charge of a conveyance including the invoice, this clearly means that the invoice has to be carried in physical form and if required shall be produced in its physical form. Considering the issue involved in this writ petition, this Court is of the firm opinion that an opportunity may be given to the petitioner to produce the relevant invoice/invoices before the statutory appellate authority, i.e., the respondent no.2 before taking a final decision on the issue to subserve justice to the petitioner also. The impugned decision of the appellate authority dated December 12, 2022 at page 65 to the writ petition stands set aside and quashed.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to impugned order dated December 12, 2022 passed by the statutory appellate authority regarding the production of relevant invoices in physical form.

Summary:

Issue 1: Requirement of producing invoices in physical form

The petitioner challenged the impugned order passed by the appellate authority, arguing that Rule 138A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 did not mandate the production of relevant invoices in physical form. The petitioner contended that carrying the invoice in electronic or digital form should suffice, as per sub-Rule 1(a) of the said Rule. However, the respondents argued that the person-in-charge of the conveyance should carry the invoice in physical form for verification, as per the provisions of sub-Rule 138A. The Court noted that the provision clearly stated that documents, including the invoice, must be carried in physical form and produced as required. The Court decided to give the petitioner an opportunity to produce the relevant invoices in physical form before the appellate authority for a fair decision.

Decision:

The impugned decision of the appellate authority was set aside and quashed. The appellate authority was directed to revisit the issue if the petitioner produced the relevant documents in physical form within two weeks. The entire process was to be completed within four weeks from receiving the physical invoices. If the petitioner failed to produce the documents as directed, the original order of the appellate authority would stand. The Court clarified that it did not assess the merits of the appeal, allowing the appellate authority to decide independently. The order did not create any rights for the petitioner in the appeal. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and a certified copy of the order could be obtained upon request.

This summary captures the key issues, arguments, and the Court's decision regarding the requirement of producing invoices in physical form as per the relevant tax rules.