2020 (8) TMI 481 - HC - GST

Detention of goods - tax was not mentioned separately in the e-way bill - detention on the allegation that there was a discrepancy in the e-way bill that accompanied the transportation of the goods - Section 129 of GST Act - HELD THAT - The power of detention under Section 129 is to be exercised only in cases where a transportation of goods is seen to be in contravention of the provisions of the Act and Rules and not simply because a document relevant for assessment does not contain details of tax payment - As per the statutory provisions applicable to the instant case, a person transporting goods is obliged to carry only the documents enumerated in Rule 138(A) of GST Rules, during the course of transportation. The said documents are (i) the invoice or bill of supply or delivery challan, as the case may be and (ii) the copy of e-way bill in physical form or e-way bill Number in electronic form etc. A reading of the said Rule clearly indicates that the e-way bill has to be in FORM GST EWB-01, and in that format, there is no field wherein the transporter is required to indicate the tax amount payable in respect of the goods transported. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the transpiration was covered by a valid tax invoice, which clearly showed the tax collected in respect of the goods and an e-way bill in the prescribed format in FORM GST EWB-01. Since there was no contravention by the petitioner of any provision of the Act or Rule for the purposes of Section 129, the detention in the instant case cannot be said to be justified. The respondents are directed to release the goods forthwith to the petitioner on the petitioner furnishing a copy of this judgment before the respondents - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge of detention notices based on e-way bill discrepancy.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the detention of goods due to a discrepancy in the e-way bill accompanying the transportation. The notices of detention stated that the e-way bill did not separately mention the tax amounts, leading to the detention of the goods. The petitioner argued that there is no legal requirement to mention tax amounts separately in the e-way bill as long as the tax payment is evident from other accompanying documents like the tax invoice. The petitioner contended that since both the tax invoice and the e-way bill were provided, clearly indicating tax payment, there was no justification for detention under Section 129 of the Act.

The Government Pleader, on the other hand, argued that Section 33 of the GST Act mandates the prominent indication of tax amounts in all relevant documents related to tax assessment and invoices. It was contended that the e-way bill, being a crucial document akin to a tax invoice, should also contain details of the tax amount. The Government Pleader linked this requirement to Section 129, which empowers the detention of goods in transit if there is a contravention of the Act. It was asserted that the absence of tax details in the e-way bill amounted to a violation of Section 33, justifying the detention.

After considering the arguments, the Court rejected the contentions of the Government Pleader. It was emphasized that the power of detention under Section 129 should only be exercised if there is a clear contravention of the Act and Rules, not merely due to a lack of tax details in a specific document. The Court highlighted that Rule 138(A) of the GST Rules specifies the documents required during transportation, which include the tax invoice and the e-way bill in the prescribed format. Since the e-way bill format (FORM GST EWB-01) does not mandate the separate mention of tax amounts, the Court ruled that the absence of such details does not constitute a violation. As the petitioner had complied with the prescribed documents and there was no breach of any statutory provision, the detention of goods was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the detention notices, and directed the immediate release of the goods to the petitioner upon furnishing a copy of the judgment to the authorities.