RENJILAL DAMODARAN Vs. ASST. STATE TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal impugns the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which refused to interfere with Exhibit P4(a) & (b) order of detention and notice issued to the appellant under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ['CGST Act' for brevity]. The learned Single Judge directed release of the goods and vehicle on furnishing Bank Guarantee for the amount demanded in the impugned notice.

(2.) The appellant is a registered dealer in tiles. A consignment of ceramic tiles was detained at Palarivattom on 06.11.2020 by a squad of the Department and Exhibits P4, P4(a) and P4(b) were issued. The reason for detention and issuance of notice was the fact that the validity of the e- way bill, accompanying the vehicle, had expired. The learned Counsel for the appellant points out from the provision applicable, i.e., Rule 138(10) of the CGST Rules, that the third proviso enables the validity of an e-way bill to be extended, within eight hours from the time of expiry. The expiry of the e-way bill is at 12.00 night of 05.11.2020 while the detention was just 1 1/2 hours after that, i.e., at 1.30 a.m. on 06.11.2020. It is also submitted that the appellant is entitled to one additional day for every 20 Kms. or part thereof, since the consignment was by road and sea; thus coming under the definition of multimodal shipment. The learned Single Judge held that violence will be caused to the language employed, if the more beneficial provision is made applicable merely for reason of the transport being multimodal; of which one leg involved transport by ship. As far as the enabling provision which permitted extension within eight hours it was found that the appellant did not attempt to so extend the validity period. The writ petition, hence, was rejected with directions as noted above.

(3.) The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that Exhibits P1 and P1(a) were not available with the transporter. The e-way bills accompanying the two separate consignments, one originates from Lalpar and the other from Bela Rangpar, both in Gujarat. The updation of the e-way bill as found in the documents produced before this Court was not accompanying the goods. From Exhibits P1 and P1(a) it is pointed out that the last updation made in the e-way bill refers to the consignment having been transported from Kottarakkara on 05.11.2020 at 4.20 p.m. The learned Government Pleader specifically submits that the consignment detained was not that shipped from Gujarat, which probably had already reached the dealer's premises at Kottarakkara when the detention was made at Palarivattom, Ernakulam.