Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2024 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 836 - HC - GSTIssues Involved: 1. Validity of the order dated 27th December 2023 by the appellate authority u/s 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. 2. Requirement of generating an e-way bill for the consignment under the provisions of the said Act and Rules. 3. Determination of the transaction value of the consignment under Section 15 of the said Act. Summary: The petitioner, proprietor of Arpan Enterprise, challenged the order dated 27th December 2023 by the appellate authority u/s 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner received consignment from M/s Apex Auto Private Limited for job work, which was transported with e-way bills dated 23rd November 2022. The consignment was detained on 24th/26th November 2022 due to defective documents and absence of an e-way bill during its return journey. The petitioner argued that as per Section 15 of the said Act, the transaction value for job work did not exceed Rs. 50,000/-, and hence, no e-way bill was required. The petitioner relied on Trade Circular No. 30/2018, stating that only a challan was necessary for returning goods after job work. The petitioner also cited Rule 138 of CGST/WBGST Rules 2017, emphasizing that an e-way bill is mandatory only if the consignment value exceeds Rs. 50,000/-. The respondents contended that the job work contract was not disclosed, and the proper officer determined the consignment value based on the goods' value, not the contract. They acknowledged that the issue required proper consideration based on appropriate disclosure by the petitioner. The court noted that the petitioner is a job worker and referred to Explanation-2 of Rule 138, which states that the consignment value should be determined as per Section 15 of the said Act. The court extracted relevant provisions of Rule 138 and Section 15, emphasizing the determination of transaction value. The court observed that the petitioner did not disclose the job work contract, and the proper officer did not record that the transaction value could not be determined u/s 15(1). The court remanded the matter to the appellate authority for re-determination, directing the petitioner to disclose all relevant documents within three weeks. The appellate authority must decide the appeal based on these disclosures within three weeks from the communication of the order. Consequently, the order dated 27th December 2023 by the appellate authority was set aside. The court clarified that if the petitioner fails to disclose the documents within the specified time, the appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with the law. The writ petition WPA 13141 of 2024 was disposed of with these observations and directions. The court noted that no affidavits were called for, and the allegations in the writ petition were deemed not admitted by the respondents. Urgent Photostat certified copies of the order were made available upon compliance with necessary formalities.
|