M/s. Sri Balaji Transport VS The Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

petitioner and a reply affidavit from the respondents were dispensed with. The matter revolves around a writ petition filed by the petitioner and a writ miscellaneous petition associated with it. Present in the Admission Board are Mr. S. Vijayakumar, representing the petitioner, and Mr. C. Harsha Raj, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Tax), who acknowledged notice on behalf of all three respondents.

Given the narrow scope of the issue at hand, both parties agreed to proceed with the main writ petition without the need for counter and reply affidavits. The specifics of the case remain undisclosed, but it is clear that it involves legal matters concerning the petitioner and the respondents.

The presence of legal representatives from both sides indicates the seriousness and complexity of the case. The consent to proceed without formal affidavits suggests a mutual understanding of the case’s parameters.

As the case moves forward, it will be intriguing to uncover the details of the dispute and the legal arguments presented by both parties. The decision of the court will likely have significant implications for all involved.

The main writ petition and its accompanying Writ Miscellaneous Petition are currently before the Admission Board. Present in court are Mr. S. Vijayakumar, representing the writ petitioner, and Mr. C. Harsha Raj, representing all three respondents. Both parties have consented to the main writ petition being heard without the necessity of a counter affidavit from the respondents.

The crux of the matter is as follows: The petitioner transported a consignment of ‘Carbon Black Feedstock Oil’ (referred to as ‘CBFS Oil’ for brevity) from Singapore to Chennai via sea and rail. Upon reaching Chennai and while being transported by surface, the truck carrying the consignment was intercepted on 06.12.2022 at Tondiarpet (Kasimedu). The truck, bearing Registration No. TN 32-AE9889, had Deepak aboard, who provided a statement recorded on 06.12.2022 in FORM GST MOV-01, referenced as O.R.No.142/2022-23 (RS-VI), henceforth referred to as the ‘impugned proceedings’. The petition challenges these proceedings.

The impugned proceedings state the owner/driver/person in charge, but the relevant options were neither scored off nor ticked by the Authority. The Revenue counsel, however, asserts that Deepak was driving the truck. This raises concerns about the precision of such forms, urging the respondents to exercise caution when using templates with ambiguous options.

The proceedings in question are based on Section 129 of ‘The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017’ (referred to as the ‘C-G&ST Act’ for convenience).

The proceedings before the court pertain to a writ petition and a related Writ Miscellaneous Petition (WMP). Both parties, represented by Mr. S. Vijayakumar for the writ petitioner and Mr. C. Harsha Raj, Additional Government Pleader (Tax) for the respondents, are present.

The main writ petition is being considered by the Admission Board. Due to the limited scope of the matter, both sides have agreed to proceed without a counter affidavit from the respondents.

The petitioner transported a consignment of ‘Carbon Black Feedstock Oil’ (‘CBFS Oil’) from Singapore to Chennai via sea and rail. However, upon surface transport in Chennai, the truck carrying the consignment was intercepted at Tondiarpet on 06.12.2022 at 09:35 a.m. The truck’s registration number is TN 32-AE9889. A statement given by an individual named Deepak during the interception, recorded on 06.12.2022 in FORM GST MOV-01, is contested in the writ petition. The impugned proceedings, conducted under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, mention ‘owner/driver/person in charge’ without indicating the appropriate option.

The petitioner’s counsel argues that the interception occurred during transit from the railway yard to a weighbridge and that the inability to produce an E-way bill at the time of interception was due to the necessity of weighment before E-way bill application.

In response, the Revenue counsel disputes this argument, claiming that the petitioner conducted internal weighing, rendering the argument fallacious.

Given the factual disputes, the court refrains from expressing an opinion at this stage, particularly as the matter heavily relies on facts. Additionally, another reason for abstaining from opinion is mentioned, but further details are not provided.

In summary, the court is currently deliberating on a writ petition concerning the interception of a consignment of CBFS Oil in Chennai and the validity of the proceedings conducted under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Both parties have presented arguments regarding the circumstances of the interception, including the issue of weighment and E-way bill application, and the court is yet to express its opinion on the matter.

The case at hand revolves around a writ petition and a writ miscellaneous petition, with both parties represented before the court by Mr. S. Vijayakumar for the petitioner and Mr. C. Harsha Raj as Additional Government Pleader (Tax) for the respondents. The main writ petition was discussed with the consent of both sides, obviating the need for a counter affidavit from the respondents.

The crux of the matter is that the petitioner transported Carbon Black Feedstock Oil (CBFS Oil) from Singapore by sea to Chennai via rail from Mumbai. Upon surface transportation in Chennai, the truck carrying the consignment was intercepted on December 6, 2022, at Tondiarpet (Kasimedu). The truck, bearing Registration No. TN 32-AE9889, was manned by an individual named Deepak, whose statement was recorded in FORM GST MOV-01 on the same day, under proceedings governed by Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (C-G&ST Act).

The petitioner asserts that the interception occurred during transit from the railway yard to a weigh bridge and that the lack of an E-way bill was the reason for the interception. They argue that an E-way bill can only be obtained after weighment at the weigh bridge. However, the Revenue counsel contends that the petitioner conducted an internal weighing, challenging the validity of this argument.

Given the factual disputes, the court refrains from expressing an opinion and proceeds to address the writ petition. It’s noted that a show-cause notice, as mandated by Section 129(3) of the C-G&ST Act, was issued to the petitioner on December 7, 2022, followed by a reply from the petitioner on the same day. The third respondent subsequently issued an order on December 9, 2022, which has been presented to the court.

The case rests on the interpretation of events and procedures under the C-G&ST Act, with the court withholding judgment on the factual disputes and opting to address the petition based on the legal framework and documentation presented.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:                                      

GST Case law: