THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAXES DEPARTMENT Vs. M/S. ALFA ALUMINIUM, PEECHAMCODE, WAYANADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State is in appeal challenging the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge.

(2.) The respondents/writ petitioners, dealers under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [for brevity "CGST Act"], were transporting goods from Ernakulam, after powder coating, to their business premises at Wayanad. The goods were accompanied with the purchase invoice of the goods and also for powder coating, which is a 'service' under the CGST Act. However, there was a specification with respect to uploading of E-way bills as per Rule 138 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules. Only on uploading of E-way bill, would the Department be notified of purchase and movement, is the contention. Without that, there could be an evasion suspected. The learned Single Judge found that the case of the writ petitioners is covered by the decision in W.P.(C) No. 196 of 2018.

(3.) We had partly heard the appeal from the aforesaid writ petition today. We notice that there is clear distinction on facts insofar as, therein the transaction was alleged to be not taxable for reason of the transport being made to the work site of one of the applicants and the other after job works, to the business premises of the dealer. Therein, there was a delivery challan under Rule 55 of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Rules. The learned Single Judge had found that since the genuineness of the said challan was not suspected, there could be no tax evasion. In the present case, the goods were transported on payment of tax; but, however, the dealer intends to re-sell the goods from his dealership. In such circumstances, suspicion of evasion cannot be brushed aside at this stage.