Shameer Chinganam Poyil vs. Asst. State Tax Officer - Kerala High Court, 12 November 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR TUE AY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1941 WP(C).No.30423 OF 2019(C) PETITIONER: SHAMEER CHINGANAM POYIL AGED 27 YEARS C.P.SONS, 08/353, KANNOOTI PARA, KORANGHADROAD, CHINGHNAPOYI, KOZHIKODE, KERALA, 673573, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SHAMEER. BY ADVS. SMT.M.K.HAJARA SRI.C.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: 1 ASST. STATE TAX OFFICER, SURVEILLANCE SQUAD NO.111, SGST DEPARTMENT, WAYANAD AT VADUVANCHAL-673581. 2 STATE TAX OFFICER, SURVEILLANCE SQUAD NO.111, SGST DEPARTMENT, WAYANAD AT VADUVANCHAL-673581, 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAXES, TAX TOWER, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002. BY ADV. SMT.THUSHARA JAMES GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C).No.30423/2019 : 2 : J U D G M E N T The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P4 detention order served on the petitioner, detaining a consignment of goods that was being transported at the instance of the petitioner. The reason shown in Ext.P4 order for the detention is that, at the time of detention of the vehicle, the original invoice was not produced by the driver of the vehicle. It is stated that the original of the invoice was shown to the check post authorities in the electronic format, and therefore, there was no justification for the detention.

The learned Government Pleader would submit, on instructions, that in terms of Rule 138A of the SGST Rules, the transporter of the goods is obliged to produce a copy of the invoice and a copy of the e-way bill. While the latter document can be produced either as a document or in electronic format, the invoice has necessarily to be produced in documentary format. In the instant case, it is stated that the invoice was not produced, and this was why the goods were detained.

On a consideration of the rival submissions, I find force in

W.P.(C).No.30423/2019 : 3 : the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the absence of an invoice can be a valid ground for detention under Section 129 of the GST Act. Accordingly, I find that the detention in Ext.P4 order is justified. However, taking note of the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I direct that if the petitioner furnishes the bank guarantee for the tax and penalty amount determined in Ext.P4, then the respondent shall release the consignment and the vehicle to the petitioner, and thereafter proceed for adjudication in terms of Section 138 of GST Act, after hearing the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed as above. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE ska

W.P.(C).No.30423/2019 : 4 : APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER THE GST LAW. EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE RETURN FORM GSTR 3B FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER. EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE INVOICE NUMBER 1925 TO 1933 DATED 02.11.2019. EXHIBIT P3 A AOF THE E-WAY BILL NO.531144749389 DATED 02.11.2019 GENERATED FOR TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS FROM AMBALAWAYAL, WAYANAD TO KOZHIKODE. EXHIBIT P4OF THE NOTICE ISSUED FORM GST MOV-

01.

EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE NOTICE ISSUED FORM GST MOV- 02 EXHIBIT P4 BOF THE NOTICE ISSUED FORM GST MOV- 04 EXHIBIT P4 COF THE NOTICE ISSUED FORM GST MOV- 06 EXHIBIT P4 DOF THE NOTICE ISSUED FORM GST MOV- 07 EXHIBIT P4 EOF THE NOTICE ISSUED FORM GST MOV- 09 EXHIBIT P5 AOF THE LETTER DATED 04.11.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 A AOF THE LETTER DATED 07.11.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 AOF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.28573 OF 2019.