Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 30TH BHADRA, 1945 WA NO. 1658 OF 2023 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.08.2023 IN WP(C) 10565/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER M/S. EVM PASSENGER CAR INDIA PVT LTDNH BYEPASS , VENPALAVATTOM, ANAYARA,TRIVANDRUM KERALA REPRESENTED BY IT'S MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. SABU JONHY., PIN – 695029 BY ADV K.LATHA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALAREPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-, PIN – 695002 2 THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICERSQUAD NO.1, KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT,NEW PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, C-BLOCK, 2ND FLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695002 DR THUSHARA JAMES SR GOVT.PLEADER THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
:2:
WA. No.1658 of 2023 JUDGMENT Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
This is an appeal preferred by the writ petitioner in WP(C).No.10565 of 2018 aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.08.2023 of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the Writ Appeal are that the appellant/writ petitioner had impugned an order of penalty issued by the respondents pursuant to the adjudication of a show cause notice that was issued to it alleging violation of the procedural requirements with regard to transportation of goods under the Goods and Services Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “the GST Act”). The case against the appellant was essentially that while the vehicle, along with goods, was passing through Anayara while going from Nettayam to Venpalavattom, it was intercepted, and on a physical verification conducted by the officers under the GST Act, it was found that the goods under transport were not accompanied by any invoice or delivery challan prescribed under the CGST/SGST Act. The show cause notice, therefore, alleged a violation of a procedural requirement under the
:3:
WA. No.1658 of 2023 GST Act and proposed a penalty of twice the amount of tax involved in the transaction. Although the appellant preferred a reply to the show cause notice and participated in an adjudication that followed, the respondents confirmed the penalty on finding that the electronic copy of the e-way bill that was produced by the appellant to establish that the consignment was covered by valid transporting documents shows a vehicle number, which was different from that contained in the e way bill.
3. The petitioner impugned the penalty order before this Court without approaching the Appellate Authority under the Act. It was the stand of the appellant that the Appellate Authority under the Act had not been constituted, and therefore, there was no effective alternative remedy for the appellant against the penalty order. The learned Single Judge who considered the Writ Petition found that although the appellant had produced copies of the e-way bills and claimed that the transport of goods was genuine and properly covered by the statutory document, a verification of the e-way bills revealed that the vehicle mentioned therein and the vehicle by which the goods were actually transported were different. It was on finding that there was no convincing explanation for the aforesaid discrepancy that the adjudicating authority imposed the penalty on the appellant. The learned Single Judge found that in the absence of any provision under
:4:
WA. No.1658 of 2023 the statute to accept alternate documents in lieu of the e-way bills, the adjudicating authority could not be seen as having erred in imposing the penalty.
Before us, although it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant Smt.Latha that the details of the goods were shown in the parent e-way bills that were generated in respect of the entire consignment, a part of which alone was being transported at the time of interception, we find ourselves unable to accept the said explanation since the statutory requirement under the GST Act and Rules has necessarily to be complied with. It is trite that when the statute prescribes the manner in which a thing has to be done, then it can be done in that manner, and no other. This is more so in relation to taxing statutes where the procedures prescribed are designed to check evasion of tax. We see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge impugned in this Writ Appeal. The Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE
mns