{"id":234200,"date":"2020-08-19T13:30:04","date_gmt":"2020-08-19T08:00:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=234200"},"modified":"2020-08-21T09:58:12","modified_gmt":"2020-08-21T04:28:12","slug":"ker-hc-power-of-detention-under-s-129-gst-act-to-be-exercised-only-in-cases-where-transportation-of-goods-is-in-contravention-of-act-and-rules-and-not-simply-because-document-relevant-for-assessme","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/19\/ker-hc-power-of-detention-under-s-129-gst-act-to-be-exercised-only-in-cases-where-transportation-of-goods-is-in-contravention-of-act-and-rules-and-not-simply-because-document-relevant-for-assessme\/","title":{"rendered":"Ker HC | Power of detention under S. 129, GST Act to be exercised only on contravention of statute, not simply because tax payment details absent in relevant documents"},"content":{"rendered":"

Kerala High Court:<\/strong> A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. allowed the writ petition and quashed the series of detention notices issued against the petitioner.<\/p>\n

The petitioner challenged a series of notices of detention, whereby a consignment of goods transported at the instance of the petitioner was detained by the respondent on the allegation that there was a discrepancy in the e-way bill that accompanied the transportation of the goods. The Court on reviewing the series of notices inferred that the reason for the detention was that, while the consignment was supported by an invoice which contained the details of the goods transported as also the tax paid in respect of the goods, there was no mention of the tax amounts separately in the e-way bill that accompanied the goods. The Court further inferred that the respondents, therefore, detained the goods on the ground that there was no valid e-way bill supporting the transportation in question.<\/p>\n

Meera Menon and Harisankar Menon, counsel on behalf of the petitioner argued that the transportation was covered both by a tax invoice, as also an e-way bill in FORM GST EWB-01, and when both the documents are perused together, it was amply clear that the transportation was covered by documents that clearly indicated the fact of payment of tax on the goods that were being transported. Thus, the detention under Section 129 was unfounded and baseless.<\/p>\n

Dr Tushara James, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that as per Section 33 of the GST Act, there is an obligation on every person, who makes supply for consideration and who is liable to pay tax for such supply, to prominently indicate in all documents relating to assessment, tax invoice and other like documents, the amount of tax which shall form part of the price at which such supply is made. Referring to the provisions of Section 129, the respondent further contended that the goods in question were being transported under cover of documents that had been raised in contravention of the provisions of Section 33. It was further argued that, the e-way bill being a document akin to a tax invoice, in relation to an assessment to tax, and not having carried the details regarding the tax amount, the transportation itself had to be viewed as in contravention of the Act and Rules for the purposes of Section 129.<\/p>\n

As per the statutory provisions applicable to the instant case, a person transporting goods is obliged to carry only the documents enumerated in Rule 138(A) of GST Rules, during the course of transportation. The said documents are<\/strong><\/p>\n