Voltas Limited Through Its Authorized Representative Mr. Zahid Hussain vs. The State Of Bihar And Ors

Facts

Voltas Limited (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an order under Section 68(1) read with Section 129(1) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which imposed a demand of Rs. 1,05,656.00. The demand arose from the detention of a consignment of goods. The petitioner argued that three consignments, each valued below Rs. 2,00,000, did not require an e-way bill as per a notification for intra-state movement. For consignments exceeding Rs. 2,00,000, an e-way bill was generated. The revenue contended that all four invoices were part of a single consignment transported in one truck. The driver initially produced one e-way bill, but further inspection revealed more goods than declared. The driver then produced additional bills, including one for a supply to Tamil Nadu, indicating inter-state movement where the notification was inapplicable.

Held

The Court rejected the petitioner's contention that the Notification exempting intra-state movement of goods valued up to Rs. 2,00,000 from e-way bill generation applied to all consignments. The Court found that one of the invoices was for a consignment destined for Tamil Nadu, clearly indicating an inter-state movement, rendering the said notification inapplicable. Furthermore, the Court observed that the e-way bill generated (Annexure-1) had a total value of Rs. 7,90,000.14 and covered three separate invoices, two of which were below Rs. 2,00,000. The e-way bill was generated on 25.06.2018, while the invoices it purportedly covered were dated 25.06.2018 and 18.06.2018. The Court found it inexplicable why these invoices, generated before the e-way bill and intended for transport in the same vehicle, were not included in the e-way bill, especially when one was for an inter-state supply. The Court also dismissed the argument that the company's reputation should preclude any assumption of evasion. Consequently, the Court found no reason to interfere with the order passed by the authorities and dismissed the writ petition. The Court directed that any recovery should be made from the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Notification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, providing exemption from e-way bill generation for intra-state movement of goods valued up to Rs. 2,00,000, is applicable to the consignments in question, thereby absolving the petitioner from the demand raised under Section 129(1)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that for three consignments with invoice values below Rs. 2,00,000, no e-way bill was required as per the notification for intra-state transactions. They argued that it is impossible to generate an e-way bill for a consignment valued less than Rs. 2,00,000. They also asserted that there was no tax evasion and that the petitioner is a reputed company. Revenue's arguments: The revenue argued that all four invoices represented a single consignment transported in one truck. They pointed out that the driver produced only one e-way bill initially, but further inspection revealed more goods than declared. Crucially, one consignment was destined for Tamil Nadu, making it an inter-state movement to which the exemption notification was not applicable. The revenue also argued against assuming no evasion based on the company's reputation and highlighted the possibility of tax evasion through multiple transports on the same invoice.