MOHAMMED SHEREEF Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a purchaser of fresh turmeric from an agriculturist in Karnataka, has approached this Court aggrieved by a detention of the consignment, while in transit, at Muthanga in Wayanad. In the writ petition it is the case of the petitioner that, the consignment in question was being transported under cover of an invoice (Ext.P3) generated by the petitioner in his capacity as purchaser of the goods, which showed the goods as attracting tax on reverse charge basis, and Ext.P5 e-way bill that was also generated by the petitioner,which showed the consignment as comprising of goods that were exempted from tax in as much as they fell under HSN code 910. The vehicle and the goods were detained, and Ext.P10 notice in FORM GST MOV-7 was issued to the petitioner wherein the objection was essentially with regard to the non-registration of the person making the interstate supply, as also the fact that the purchase bill issued by the petitioner was not a valid document for the purposes of supporting an interstate taxable supply.

(2.) The petitioner contends that, while the consignor agriculturist is not required to take any registration in view of the express provisions of Section 23(1)(b) of the Act, he is also not required to take a compulsory registration under Section 24, since the non-obstante clause in Section 24 does not apply to agriculturists mentioned under Section 23. It is his further case that, while the e-way bill (Ext.P5) clearly indicated that the goods were exempted goods, being turmeric bulbs and turmeric, even if the respondents have a case that the goods have been wrongly classified, the same cannot be a reason for detaining the goods under Section 129. Alternatively, it is contended that while a delivery challan of the consignor agriculturist did not accompany the consignment, the mere fact that the petitioner had generated an invoice, assuming the goods to be taxable on reverse charge basis, cannot be a ground for detention under Section 129.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader would submit on instructions that the goods on verification were found to not answer the description of exempted goods under HSN Code 910. It is her further submission that the consignment was not accompanied by a delivery challan that is required to accompany any consignment of exempted goods sold by an unregistered person.