IN HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020/21ST SRAVANA, 1942 W.P(C).No.16356 OF 2020 PETITIONER: M.S.STEEL AND PIPES MARKET ROAD, CHEKKALAMUKKU, SREEKARYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER M.S.FAISAL. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 ASST. STATE TAX OFFICER STATE GST DEPARTMENT, INTELLIGENCE SQUAD NO.VI, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 541. 2 COMMISSIONER OF STATE GST, TAX TOWERS, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002. BY SMT.DR. THUSHARA JAMES, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.08.2020, COURT ON SAME DAY DELIVERED FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.16356 OF 2020 2 JUDGMENT Dated this 12th day of August 2020 petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P4 series of notices of detention, whereby consignment of goods transported at instance of petitioner was detained by respondent on allegation that there was discrepancy in e-way bill that accompanied transportation of goods. On perusal of Ext.P4 series of notice, I find that reason for detention was that, while consignment was supported by invoice which contained details of goods transported as also tax paid in respect of goods, there was no mention of tax amounts separately in e-way bill that accompanied goods. respondents therefore detained goods on ground that there was no valid e-way bill, supporting transportation in question. 2. learned counsel for petitioner would point out that there is no requirement under Act and Rules for mentioning tax amount separately in e-way bill in FORM GST EWB-01 that petitioner was obliged to use to cover transportation in question. It is further pointed that there is no dispute that transportation was covered both by tax invoice, as also e-way bill in FORM GST EWB-01, and when both documents are perused together, it is WP(C).No.16356 OF 2020 3 amply clear that transportation was covered by documents that clearly indicated fact of payment of tax on goods that were being transported. It is contended therefore that there was no justification for detention under Section 129 of Act. 3. Per contra, it is submission of learned Government Pleader that as per Section 33 of GST Act, there is obligation on every person, who makes supply for consideration and who is liable to pay tax for such supply, to prominently indicate in all documents relating to assessment, tax invoice and other like documents, amount of tax which shall form part of price at which such supply is made. She reads said provision in juxtaposition with Section 129 of Act which deals with power to detain goods in transit. Referring to provisions of Section 129, it is contended that goods in question were being transported under cover of documents that had been raised in contravention of provisions of Section 33. It is argued that, e-way bill being document akin to tax invoice, in relation to assessment to tax, and not having carried details regarding tax amount, transportation itself had to be viewed as in contravention of Act and Rules for purposes of Section 129. 4. On consideration of rival submissions, I am of view that submissions of learned Government Pleader cannot be accepted. power of WP(C).No.16356 OF 2020 4 detention under Section 129 is to be exercised only in cases where transportation of goods is seen to be in contravention of provisions of Act and Rules and not simply because document relevant for assessment does not contain details of tax payment. As per statutory provisions applicable to instant case, person transporting goods is obliged to carry only documents enumerated in Rule 138(A) of GST Rules, during course of transportation. said documents are (i) invoice or bill of supply or delivery challan, as case may be and (ii) copy of e-way bill in physical form or e-way bill Number in electronic form etc. reading of said Rule clearly indicates that e-way bill has to be in FORM GST EWB-01, and in that format, there is no field wherein transporter is required to indicate tax amount payable in respect of goods transported. If statutorily prescribed form does not contain field for entering details of tax payable in e-way bill, then non-mentioning of tax amount cannot be seen as act in contravention of rules. In instant case, it is not in dispute that transpiration was covered by valid tax invoice, which clearly showed tax collected in respect of goods and e-way bill in prescribed format in FORM GST EWB-01. Since there was no contravention by petitioner of any provision of Act or Rule for purposes of Section 129, detention in instant case cannot be said to be justified. In result, I allow writ petition by quashing Ext.P4 series of detention notices and directing respondents to release goods forthwith to WP(C).No.16356 OF 2020 5 petitioner on petitioner furnishing copy of this judgment before respondents. learned Government Pleader shall communicate gist of directions in this judgment to respondents for enabling expeditious clearance of goods and vehicle. Sd/- A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE sab WP(C).No.16356 OF 2020 6 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF INVOICE NO.A818 ISSUED BY PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF E-WAY BILL NO.5211 9408 0871 OF PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF FORM GST MOV-02 ORDER FOR PHYSICAL VERIFICATION ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF FORM GST MOV-O4 ORDER FOR PHYSICAL VERIFICATION ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 B COPY OF FORM GST MOV-Q6 ORDER FOR DETENTION ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 C COPY OF FORM GST MOV-07 NOTICE OF DEMANDING TAX/PENALTY ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. M.S. Steel and Pipes v. Asst. State Tax Officer / Commissioner of State GST