9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ote of the nature of the course of action now projected before this Court, the case is only at the stage of detention of the goods and the vehicle concerned and therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the abovesaid rival contentions raised by both sides need not be resolved by this Court at this stage of the matter. It is ordered that the 2nd respondent shall forthwith release the goods and vehicle detained pursuant to the impugned Ext.P5 detention order to the petitioner on the latter furnishing bank guarantee for the value of the amount of ₹ 20,274/- as shown in the impugned Ext.P5 detention order. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent will immediately take steps to ensure that the adjudication proceedings in pursuance to Ext.P5 detention order are finalized in accordance with law. Petition disposed off. - WP (C).No.1918 OF 2020 (L) - - - Dated:- 4-2-2020 - MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS J. PETITIONER/S: BY ADVS. SRI. M. GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI. K. JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RESPONDENT/S: R1 BY SRI. S. BIJU, CGC SMT.M.M.JASMINE, GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASGI JUDGMENT The prayers in the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,000/- on account of which, the petitioner duly updated Part B of the E-Way Bill for this particular invoice. However the remaining consignments were under the ₹ 50,000/- threshold and hence, there was no legal obligation on the petitioner, whatsoever, to update Part B of these invoices. Consignments are to be considered individually and not as a sum of all the goods carried in a conveyance and therefore, the detention of the Petitioner's vehicles and goods as also the arbitrary imposition of tax and penalty are unsustainable in the eyes of law. 5. The main contentions urged by the petitioner are as follows : (a) That the petitioner is challenging the continued detainment of its conveyance and the goods contained therein by the 2nd respondent. (b) That the petitioner is also challenging the arbitrary imposition of tax and penalty by the 2nd respondent for want of Part B of the E-Way bill. (c) That Part B of E-Way Bill in FORM GST EWB-01 is only required to be updated by a GTA if the value of each consignment if worth more than 50,000/- (d) where the value of each consignment is below such amount, the petitioner cannot be held liable for not updati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GOOD HSN NO. VALUE OF INVOICE E-WAY BILL STATUS MD14112/12-20 Flush Mounting Metal Gang box 8538 ₹ 8,036.00 Part A updated MD14116/19-20 13AMP international Socket-Electric Grey 8536 ₹ 37,552.00 Part A updated MD14134/19-20 2 Way Switch-Glossy White 8536 ₹ 71,379.00 Part A+ Part B updated MD14139/19-20 Wavio Wood Walnut 8538 ₹ 10,726.00 Part A updated 8. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that the requirement for updating part B of the e-way bill is required only in a case where the value of the consignment concerned is above ₹ 50,000/- and that in a case where the value of the consignment is upto ₹ 50,000/- or below that, then the requirement of updating part-A and part-B of the E-Way bill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 138(7) will be notified from a future date, hence till the notification for that effect comes, transporter needs not generate e-way bill for consignments having value less than ₹ 50,000/- even if the value of the goods carried in single conveyance is more than ₹ 50,000/- till the said sub-rule is notified. 10. It is pointed out that the said stand of the department is substantially fully in favour of the petitioner, inasmuch as it is made clear that till Rule 138(7) is notified to be brought in force, the transporter need not generate e-way bills for consignments having value less than ₹ 50,000/-, even if the value of the goods carried in a single conveyance is more than ₹ 50,000/- . 11. Per contra, Smt. M.M.Jasmine, learned Government Pleader would argue that the said aspect born from page 2 of Ext.P7 may not be relevant inasmuch as the provisions contained in Rule 138(7) will not cover the facts of this case, since what is envisaged in that sub-rule is inter state supply, whereas in the instant case, it is admittedly intra state supply. 12. Further, the learned Government Pleader would argue that by virtue of the mandatory force of sub-rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
