2022 (4) TMI 56 - HC - GST

Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - E-Way Bill Part B has not been filled up - petitioner had given reply that the goods are transported for a distance of upto 50 Kms within the State from the place of business of the consignor to the place of business of the transporter for further transportation - HELD THAT - This Court feels that, those issues can be canvassed before the Adjudicating Authority as to whether the benefit sought for by the petitioner that, the goods were transported only for the purpose of unloading and reloading into another place for the purpose of reaching the destination i.e., the factory or premises of the petitioner and therefore, the absence of the Entry in Part B in E-Way Bill is not intentional one and whether that can be condoned or not, is altogether a question to be gone into by the Adjudicating Authority, before whom, it is open to the petitioner to raise all these points which have been raised before this Court for consideration. If those points are raised before the Adjudicating Authority by giving necessary details and inputs in support of the same, that can very well be considered by the Adjudicating Authority objectively and thereafter an order to that effect can be passed. That the petitioner is relegated to go before the Adjudicating Authority, where, it is open to the petitioner to raise the points and grounds urged before this Court in support of the challenge made in these writ petitions. If such grounds are urged with supporting documents and input to be supplied in this regard by the petitioner, the same shall be considered objectively by giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or his counsel and thereafter, decide the same by considering the circumstances of the case - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Interception of a vehicle for not filling up E-Way Bill Part B, detention order, penalty proceedings, interpretation of business premises under GST Act.

Analysis:
The High Court of Madras heard writ petitions concerning the interception of a vehicle with Registration No. TN07 AV 7881 for not filling up E-Way Bill Part B. The driver's statement was recorded during the interception on 15.03.2022. It was found that the E-Way Bill Part B was not filled up, leading to the issuance of Form GST MOV-01 & 02. The petitioner claimed that the goods were transported within the State for a distance of up to 50 Kms and, therefore, the transporter need not furnish details of conveyance in Part-B of Form EWB-01. Despite this explanation, a detention order was passed, and penalty proceedings were initiated, challenging which the writ petitions were filed.

During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel argued various aspects, including the interpretation of "the business premises" under the GST Act. The Court opined that such issues should be raised before the Adjudicating Authority to determine if the absence of the Entry in Part B of E-Way Bill was intentional or not. The Adjudicating Authority was deemed competent to objectively consider all points raised by the petitioner, including providing necessary details and inputs in support of the claims.

The Court, after considering submissions from both sides, disposed of the writ petitions by directing the petitioner to approach the Adjudicating Authority. The petitioner was given the opportunity to present all points and grounds raised before the Court with supporting documents. The Adjudicating Authority was instructed to objectively consider the circumstances of the case, provide a hearing to the petitioner or their counsel, and issue a final order within two weeks from the date of receipt of the Court's order. The writ petitions were thus disposed of with no costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.