2024 (6) TMI 836 - HC - GST

Determination of value of supply in case of Job work - Challenge to order passed by the appellate authority u/s 107 of the WBGST / CGST Act 2017 - generation of e-way bill - Receipt of goods for executing certain job work from outside the state - the petitioner was in the process of returning the consignment upon executing the job work and had loaded the same in a vehicle the same was intercepted and detained - HELD THAT - It is noticed that in terms of Section 15 of the said Act where the value of supply of goods or services cannot be determined under sub-Section (1) of the said Section the same shall be determined as may be prescribed. In the instant case it is found that the petitioner chose not to disclose the contract in question though a reflection thereof is available in the purchase order. Records however do not reveal that the proper officer had proceeded to ignore the transaction value by recording that the same is not possible to be determined in accordance with Section 15(1) of the said Act. In fact the aforesaid aspect has not been considered either by the proper officer or by the appellate authority. As to whether or not the petitioner is required to generate e-way bill would however depend on the determination of the transaction value in respect of the goods in question and the same would be required to be gone into on the basis of the facts. Since admittedly the aforesaid aspect has not been considered either by the proper officer or by the appellate authority the matter is remanded back to the appellate authority for redetermination of the aforesaid issued - the petitioner is further directed to disclose all documents in connection with the job work for the proper officer to identify the transaction value of the goods/consignment. Such disclosure must be made by the petitioner within a period of 3 weeks the date of communication of this order. Petition disposed off.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the detention order dated 26th November 2022.
2. Requirement of generating an e-way bill for the consignment under the CGST/WBGST Act.
3. Determination of the transaction value for the purpose of generating an e-way bill.
4. Proper consideration of the job work contract and related documents by the authorities.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Detention Order Dated 26th November 2022:
The petitioner, a proprietor of Arpan Enterprise, challenged the detention order dated 26th November 2022, which detained the consignment on the grounds of defective documents and absence of an e-way bill. The physical verification conducted revealed no other discrepancies apart from what was indicated in the detention order. The petitioner had obtained release of the consignment by paying the penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017, and subsequently challenged the penalty order.

2. Requirement of Generating an E-Way Bill for the Consignment:
The petitioner argued that since the transaction value did not exceed Rs. 50,000, generating an e-way bill was not required as per Rule 138 of the CGST/WBGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner relied on Section 15 of the said Act and a trade circular no. 30/2018 dated 17th September 2018, which stated that goods returned after job work should be accompanied by a challan and no other documents. This aspect was overlooked by both the proper officer and the appellate authority.

3. Determination of the Transaction Value for the Purpose of Generating an E-Way Bill:
The court noted that the consignment value should be determined as per Section 15 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017, which includes the transaction value declared in an invoice, bill of supply, or delivery challan. The petitioner did not disclose the job work contract, which led the proper officer to determine the consignment value based on the value of the goods. The proper officer did not record that the transaction value could not be determined under Section 15(1) of the Act. This aspect was not considered by either the proper officer or the appellate authority.

4. Proper Consideration of the Job Work Contract and Related Documents by the Authorities:
The court emphasized that the determination of whether an e-way bill was required depended on the transaction value of the goods. The petitioner was directed to disclose all documents related to the job work for the proper officer to identify the transaction value. The appellate authority was instructed to reconsider the issue based on the petitioner's disclosures and decide the appeal accordingly.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the order dated 27th December 2023 passed by the appellate authority and remanded the matter back for redetermination. The petitioner was given three weeks to disclose all relevant documents. The appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal within three weeks of receiving the disclosures. If the petitioner failed to disclose the documents within the specified time, the appellate authority would dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with the law.

Final Orders:
1. The order dated 27th December 2023 is set aside.
2. The matter is remanded back to the appellate authority for redetermination.
3. The petitioner must disclose all relevant documents within three weeks.
4. The appellate authority must decide the appeal within three weeks of receiving the disclosures.
5. The writ petition WPA 13141 of 2024 is disposed of.
6. No affidavits were called for, and allegations in the writ petition are deemed not admitted by the respondents.
7. Urgent Photostat certified copies of the order to be made available upon compliance with necessary formalities.

← Previous Next →