Renjilal Damodaran v. The Assistant State Tax Officer, Ernakulam / the Commissioner of State Tax, Thiruvananthapuram
[Citation -2020-LL-1120-92]

Citation 2020-LL-1120-92
Appellant Name Renjilal Damodaran
Respondent Name The Assistant State Tax Officer, Ernakulam / the Commissioner of State Tax, Thiruvananthapuram
Relevant Act CGST
Date of Order 20/11/2020
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags goods and services tax • issuance of notice • bank guarantee • notice issued

IN HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAVI FRIDAY, 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 29TH KARTHIKA, 1942 W.A.No.1495 OF 2020 AGAINST JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).No.24819/2020(B) DATED 13.11.2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/ PETITIONER: RENJILAL DAMODARAN, AGED 50 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, M/S. DAMU AND SONS SALES CORPORATION, BACK SIDE OF K N S HOSPITAL, PULAMON P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: 1 ASST. STATE TAX OFFICER, SQUAD NO.VIII, SGST DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 015. 2 COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, TAX TOWERS, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.11.2020, COURT ON SAME DAY DELIVERED FOLLOWING: W.A.No.1495 of 2020 - 2 - K. Vinod Chandran & T.R.Ravi, JJ. W.A.No.1495 of 2020 Dated, this 20th day of November, 2020 JUDGMENT Vinod Chandran, J. appeal impugns judgment of learned Single Judge, which refused to interfere with Exhibit P4(a) & (b) order of detention and notice issued to appellant under Section 129(3) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ['CGST Act' for brevity]. learned Single Judge directed release of goods and vehicle on furnishing Bank Guarantee for amount demanded in impugned notice. 2. appellant is registered dealer in tiles. consignment of ceramic tiles was detained at Palarivattom on 06.11.2020 by squad of Department and Exhibits P4, P4(a) and P4(b) were issued. reason for detention and issuance of notice was fact that validity of e- way bill, accompanying vehicle, had expired. learned Counsel for appellant points out from provision applicable, i.e., Rule 138(10) of CGST Rules, W.A.No.1495 of 2020 - 3 - that third proviso enables validity of e-way bill to be extended, within eight hours from time of expiry. expiry of e-way bill is at 12.00 night of 05.11.2020 while detention was just 1 hours after that, i.e., at 1.30 a.m. on 06.11.2020. It is also submitted that appellant is entitled to one additional day for every 20 Kms. or part thereof, since consignment was by road and sea; thus coming under definition of multimodal shipment. learned Single Judge held that violence will be caused to language employed, if more beneficial provision is made applicable merely for reason of transport being multimodal; of which one leg involved transport by ship. As far as enabling provision which permitted extension within eight hours it was found that appellant did not attempt to so extend validity period. writ petition, hence, was rejected with directions as noted above. 3. learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that Exhibits P1 and P1(a) were not available with transporter. e-way bills accompanying two separate consignments, one originates from Lalpar and other from Bela Rangpar, both in W.A.No.1495 of 2020 - 4 - Gujarat. updation of e-way bill as found in documents produced before this Court was not accompanying goods. From Exhibits P1 and P1(a) it is pointed out that last updation made in e-way bill refers to consignment having been transported from Kottarakkara on 05.11.2020 at 4.20 p.m. learned Government Pleader specifically submits that consignment detained was not that shipped from Gujarat, which probably had already reached dealer's premises at Kottarakkara when detention was made at Palarivattom, Ernakulam. 4. We see from Rule 138(10) that specific period for which e-way bill is valid is evident from table under that rule. Serial Nos.1 and 2 deals with cargo other than Over Dimensional Cargo [hereinafter 'ODC'] and serial Nos.3 and 4 with ODC. ODC is cargo having dimensions in excess of vehicle in which it is carried. contention of appellant is that amendment by which insertion was made in 2019 takes in multimodal shipment in which at least one leg involves transport by ship and whether it be ODC or goods other than ODC, Serial Nos.3 and 4 of Table would be applicable. We do not see appellant having been taken benefit of extended period W.A.No.1495 of 2020 - 5 - when uploading and updating e-way bill. fact that multimodal transport, including one leg by sea, having figured in all three serial numbers indicates distinction of ODC and other than ODC having been retained even after insertion. This is anomaly which, however, this Court cannot consider having intended only for serial No.4. 5. next contention is with respect to enabling proviso under Rule 138(10). We perfectly agree with submission of learned Senior Government Pleader that this would only enable consignee to update e-way bill extending period provided under Table; within eight hours from time of its expiry. learned Senior Government Pleader has vehemently argued that there is no authority for appellant to commence transport without such extension being carried out within eight hours; which we agree with. If shipment could be cleared only just before or after period of expiry of e-way bill, then there could be extension made by updation and transport commenced with such e-way bill accompanying goods. W.A.No.1495 of 2020 - 6 - 6. We, hence, reject both contentions of appellant and affirm judgment of learned Single Judge. directions in judgment of learned Single Judge would be carried out by Department. appeal would stand dismissed, in limine. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- T.R.RAVI JUDGE Vku/- [ true copy ] Renjilal Damodaran v. Assistant State Tax Officer, Ernakulam / Commissioner of State Tax, Thiruvananthapuram
Report Error