FORUS MOTORS Vs. STATE TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition, W.P. (C)No.16894 of 2019. The writ petition was dismissed by leaving liberty to the appellant to approach the appellate authority. This appeal is filed on raising contention that the subject matter involves a legal question which need to have decided by this Court, which the appellate authority may not be in a position to adjudicate upon.

(2.) Challenge in the writ petition was against Ext.P6 order passed by the 2nd respondent, under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. On an earlier occasion, the interception of the movement of the goods transported and the consequential issuance of the detention notice, were challenged in a writ petition filed before this Court. In Ext.P5 order passed by a learned Judge of this Court, the respondents were directed to release the vehicle (goods), subject to condition of the appellant filing an undertaking that the vehicle will be produced as and when required by the respondents and that no third party interest would be created upon the vehicle. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P6 order imposing tax and penalty under sub-section (3) of Section 129. Challenge against the said order was declined through the judgment impugned, discernibly because of the fact that an effective alternative remedy is available against the said order.

(3.) The detention was on the basis of an alleged irregularity that the appellant had failed to generate the eway bill, as required under Rule 138 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules. Contention raised is that, generation of e-way bill was not required with respect to the transport in question, in view of sub-rule (14)(b) of Rule 138. It was argued that the goods in question was transported not by means of a motorised conveyance. The 2nd respondent had considered this issue and found that, generation of e-way bill was mandatory, because the goods transported was a new vehicle (Autorickshaw) transported from the principal place of business of the appellant to its branch by specifically raising a 'delivery note'. The consignment was by way of "Branch Transfer"? (stock transfer). Further it was found that the new vehicle which was transported had carried with it a temporary registration number and that the appellant could have used the said number for filing details while generating the e-way bill.