M/S Perfect Copier Services vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh

The issue before this Court is whether the said penal amount/amounts paid should be refunded to the petitioners or not.

In the year 2017, there was a changeover from the earlier sales tax regime, under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 [for short the APVAT Act ] and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 to a new regime under the Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short “ the GST Act”] including the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short “ the CGST Act”], Andhra Pradesh Goods & Services Tax and Integrated Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 [for the short “IGST Act”]. In the earlier regime, goods could be transported within the State of Andhra Pradesh as well as exported outside of the State or brought into the State across the State boundaries as long as the said goods were accompanied with certain documents such as e-way bills etc. During the changeover from the earlier regime to the new regime, there was a period of time when the CGST Act and the rules prescribed thereunder did provide for the documents that shouJd accompany the movement of goods. In such circumstances, the State Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.309, dated 24.07.2017. Under this G.O, the movement of goods, both intrastate and interstate, were permitted as long as the documents mentioned in the said G.O, namely e-way bills, were generated by the dealers, who were concerned with the said goods.This meant that the dealers who had purchased the goods not 3 outside the State, were required to generate e-way bills to accompany the goods which were coming into the State on account of such purchases. Various dealers, including the petitioners, had sought to move goods from outside the State into the State of Andhra Pradesh without the said e-way bills. However, other documents of proof of title and purchase such as purchase bills, sale invoices of the sellers, lorry receipts showing payment of consignment charges etc. were available. In some cases, the selling dealers outside the State had also generated e-way bills which accompanied 5. the goods. The tax authorities, detained the goods which were moving with 6. such documents on the ground that G.O.Ms.No.309, dated 24.07.2017 prescribed certain documents and the same were not available when the goods were stopped. Thereafter, the tax authorities had taken steps to detain the goods by passing detention orders and in some cases, also passed confiscation orders. Aggrieved by the said actions, some of the dealers had approached the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh by way of W.P.Nos.41361 of 7. 2017 & batch. A Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, after considering the provisions of the IGST Act and the provisions of 8. G.O.Ms.No.309, dated 24.07.2017 and G.O.Ms.No.180, dated 09.08.2017, had, by a common order, dated 11.12.2017, set out certain guidelines for determining whether the movement of goods, in each cases, was a proper movement of goods.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the said interim order is a comprehensive order which can be treated as a final order for the purposes of the disposal of these Writ Petitions.

The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax would contend that the said order cannot be treated as a final order. He further contends that the petitioners, who are all registered dealers, ought to have aware of the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.309 G.O.Ms.No.180, dated 09.08.2017 and should have taken appropriate steps for issuance of e-way bills by themselves. He would further submit that the claim of the petitioners, that such e-way bills are not necessary and the other documents of title and movement of goods would be sufficient cannot be accepted. dated 24.07.2017 and 11. A perusal of the order of the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh dated 11.12.2017 would show that the Division Bench had considered the very same contentions and had negatived the contentions. We do not find any reason to differ from the view taken by the said

In such circumstances, these Writ Petitions are disposed of with the following directions:- 1) The question of whether the movement of goods, of the petitioners herein, would amount to a proper movement of goods, which would not attract any penal action or payment of tax, shall be determined by applying the guideline such as, wherever e-way bills/tax invoice/delivery challan of the originating State is produced, the movement of goods shall be treated as bona fide movement of goods and it would not attract any penal action/tax/penalty under the GST regime. 2) The respective respondent authorities, in these Writ Petitions, shall apply the above guideline to decide whether there had been proper movement of goods or not. 3) For the purpose of such determination, it will also be open to the petitioners to place any further documents of the nature mentioned above to demonstrate that the movement of goods was bona fide and not designed to escape or evade of tax. 4) It is open to the petitioners to place any further material before the respective respondent authorities, within a period of two (2) weeks from today. 1 i

G2 Logistics, No. 23, S'” Cross Behind SFSSch ~ road. Electronic City Post Aneiral Sic Kammasand

The Assistant Commilsfont rST r^S'^ ""f Tax), Near New Bus Stand Rofd^ MadhurariaS* (Slate Godavari District, A. P. ’ Akividu, West ra

M/s. Moksha Business Hyderabad-500001, Telangana ^

The Deputy Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (Revision), O/o. the Joint Commissioner (ST), Anantapuramu. • -r r' + i

The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Service Tax, Centra Secretariat, New Delhi. rMonn

One CC to Sri Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan, Advocate [OPUCJ

One CC to Sri G. Nagendra Chetty, Advocate [OPUC]

One CC to Sri Kodanda Rama Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

One CC to Sri Battu Srinivasa Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 18 One CC to Sri K. Jaya Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] GP for Commercial Tax, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 19.TWO CCs to 20.One CC to Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, Additional Solicitor General of India (OPUC)

One CC to M/s. Divya Datia, Central Govt. Counsel (OPUC)

Three C.D. Copies. Cnr