M/s. DCM Shriram Limited VS State Tax Officer-1 (INT)

Mr. V. Prashanth Kiran, the learned Government Advocate, has accepted the notice for the respondent and has received sufficient instructions to facilitate the final disposal of this matter.

The petitioner, a company engaged in the manufacture of UPVC windows, had conducted a transaction for the supply of goods to an individual, a registered dealer under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act). The dealer’s place of business is located at 37/1, Aga Abbas Ali Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore – 560 001, and is referred to as the Consignee.

The Consignee subsequently arranged a sale/delivery transaction with M/s. Signature Groups, situated at No. 36/3, Old No. 578, Vasavi Avenue, Bangalore – 560 041. This transaction was structured as a Bill to – Ship to arrangement. In such arrangements, the invoice lists the Consignee as the taxable entity for administrative and logistical purposes, while the actual delivery of goods is directed to a third-party destination, which in this case is the location of Signature Group.

On 19.10.2022, the goods were intercepted and detained under a detention order. Form GST-MOV-01 was issued as part of this order, outlining the reason for detention. The specific details of the reason for detention were not provided in the excerpt.

In a legal case involving the petitioner, a company manufacturing UPVC windows, Mr. V. Prashanth Kiran, the learned Government Advocate, represented the respondent with sufficient instructions for the case’s final resolution. The petitioner entered into a transaction to supply goods to a registered dealer under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, 2017, located at 37/1, Aga Abbas Ali Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore (Consignee). This Consignee had further entered into a sale/delivery transaction with M/s. Signature Groups, located at No.36/3, Old No.578, Vasavi Avenue, Bangalore, arranging the transaction as a Bill to – Ship to transaction. Here, the invoice listed the Consignee as the taxable entity, while the delivery was to the Signature Group’s location.

On 19.10.2022, the goods were intercepted and detained under an order of detention, Form GST-MOV-01, which cited the reason as “Goods (UPVC window) moved from Kanchipuram to Karnataka. Ship to Address is unregistered person. Hence GDN Issued.” In response to a notice under Section 129(3) of the GST Act, the petitioner clarified that only the Consignee’s registration details were necessary on the e-way bill for a Bill to – Ship to transaction, not those of the ultimate consumer.

Despite this, the Signature Group, although registered, did not have its GSTN number mentioned in the e-way bill. The petitioner’s response on 21.10.2022 was handed over to the respondent officer on 26.10.2022, but it was rejected with the same reason for the detention: “Ship to address is unregistered person and GST Number is not mentioned in tax invoice.” Consequently, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the impugned order dated 26.10.2022.

Mr. Prashanth highlighted Rule 46 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which deals with tax invoices. He pointed out that Section 31 of the Act mandates specific particulars, including registration details, to be included in the tax invoice. The case hinges on the interpretation and adherence to these requirements within the GST framework, particularly concerning Bill to – Ship to transactions and the proper documentation needed for compliance.

Mr. V. Prashanth Kiran, the learned Government Advocate, represented the respondent and was prepared with instructions for the final disposal of this matter. The petitioner is a company engaged in manufacturing UPVC windows and entered into a transaction to supply goods to an individual registered dealer under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act), located at 37/1, Aga Abbas Ali Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore – 560 001 (Consignee). The Consignee further entered into a transaction to deliver the goods to M/s. Signature Groups at 36/3, Old No.578, Vasavi Avenue, Bangalore – 560 041. The arrangement was a “Bill to – Ship to” transaction, wherein the invoice lists the consignee as the taxable entity, but the goods are delivered to a third party, Signature Group.

The goods were intercepted and detained on 19.10.2022 under an order of detention, Form GST-MOV-01, citing that the “Ship to” address was an unregistered person. The petitioner responded to a notice under Section 129(3) explaining that in a “Bill to – Ship to” transaction, only the consignee’s registration details need to be disclosed on the e-way bill, and it is not mandatory to include the ultimate consumer’s registration details.

The petitioner clarified that Signature Groups is registered, although its GST number was not on the e-way bill. The response, dated 21.10.2022, was handed to the respondent officer on 26.10.2022 and was rejected with the same reason as the detention order, stating that the “Ship to” address is unregistered and the GST number was not mentioned on the tax invoice. Consequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 26.10.2022.

Mr. Prashanth highlighted Rule 46 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which outlines the required particulars for a tax invoice under Section 31 of the Act. The petitioner argued that they had fully disclosed all necessary details regarding the purchaser, including GST particulars, address, and PAN number, thus fulfilling the requirements of Rule 46. Additionally, the particulars of the consignee were provided, indicating compliance with the procedural requirements of the Act and Rules.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:                                      

GST Case law: