New Royal Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Trading Corporation VS The Deputy State Tax Officer

the writ petition filed challenges a notice dated December 4, 2022, referenced as Order No. 20031/2022-23, issued by the respondent. This notice, referred to as the “impugned notice” for brevity, is being contested primarily under the Certiorari jurisdiction. The petitioner seeks the quashing of this notice. Additionally, the petition includes a Mandamus prayer, requesting a directive to the respondent for the release of the vehicle and consignment in question.

It’s noteworthy that the impugned notice was issued under Section 129(3) of three acts: ‘The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017’, ‘Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Act, 2017’, and ‘Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017’, abbreviated as C-G&ST Act, TN-GST Act, and Integrated G & ST Act respectively for clarity and conciseness.

The petitioner, as represented by their learned counsel, operates in the trade of Ferrous and Non-Ferrous goods. They assert that they issued an invoice for the transportation of battery scrap from Tiruvannamalai to Malur in the State of Karnataka.

The summary of the captioned writ petition entails a challenge against a notice issued on December 4, 2022, referred to as the ‘impugned notice’, within the context of various acts related to goods and services tax. The petition seeks relief on two grounds: first, via the Certiorari limb, questioning the legality of the notice, and second, through the Mandamus limb, seeking an order for the release of a vehicle and its consignment.

The petitioner, engaged in the trade of Ferrous and Non-Ferrous goods, invoiced a transport of battery scrap from Tiruvannamalai to Malur in Karnataka, carried by a truck with Registration No. KA01-AG-4894. However, on December 4, 2022, the truck was intercepted by the respondent at Krishnagiri Toll Plaza. The respondent alleges discrepancies regarding the transport, claiming that although the invoice was dated December 9, 2022, a vehicle tracking app shows the truck’s movement on December 3, 2022, at Thoppur Toll, with an E-way bill generated at 9:56 pm on the same day, which seemingly violates Rule 138 of the Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

The scope of the petition is recognized as narrow, pivoting on the core contention surrounding the alleged contravention of tax rules. Both parties consented to the petition’s consideration, leading to its acceptance for further deliberation.

The writ petition challenges a notice issued by the respondent dated 04.12.2022, regarding an order made under various tax acts. The petitioner, engaged in the trade of Ferrous and Non-Ferrous goods, invoiced a transport of battery scrap from Tiruvannamalai to Malur in Karnataka. However, the consignment’s truck was intercepted by the respondent at Krishnagiri Toll Plaza on the specified date and time, citing discrepancies in the movement of the vehicle as per a tracking app and the timing of the E-way bill generation.

The petition argues that there was no violation of the relevant tax acts or rules, thereby seeking interference with the impugned notice. The matter was brought before the court with consent from both sides, considering its narrow scope and the primary contention regarding the alleged violation. The court also noted the dispensation of the need for a counter affidavit, given the ongoing proceedings under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (C-G&ST Act), under which the impugned notice was issued.

The core argument of the petitioner’s counsel hinges on the absence of any violation of the tax acts or rules, opposing the notice’s validity. However, the Revenue counsel points to Rule 138 of the C-G&ST Rules, which mandates information submission prior to the movement of goods and E-way bill generation. The discrepancy between the timing of E-way bill generation and the vehicle’s movement is highlighted by the Revenue counsel, further complicated by unclear handwritten portions of the impugned notice.

Overall, the case revolves around the alleged violation of tax regulations regarding the transport of goods, with both parties presenting arguments centered on the interpretation of relevant laws and procedural requirements.

A detailed summary of the captioned writ petition reveals a legal dispute concerning a notice issued by the respondent on December 4, 2022, regarding an order related to the transportation of goods. The petitioner challenges this notice through a writ petition, primarily seeking relief through the Certiorari and Mandamus limbs of the prayer.

The petitioner, engaged in the trade of Ferrous and Non-Ferrous goods, invoiced the transport of battery scrap from Tiruvannamalai to Malur in Karnataka. However, the truck carrying the consignment was intercepted by the respondent at Krishnagiri Toll Plaza on the specified date and time. The respondent alleges discrepancies between the invoice date and the truck’s movement recorded on an app, citing a violation of Rule 138 of the Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, as the basis for the notice.

During the court proceedings, both sides presented their arguments. The petitioner’s counsel contends that there has been no violation of the relevant tax acts or rules, hence seeking interference with the impugned notice. However, the Revenue counsel highlights Rule 138 and discrepancies in the timing of e-way bill generation and the vehicle’s movement.

Despite the arguments raised, the court opines that the matter primarily hinges on factual considerations, such as the timing of the vehicle’s movement. As per Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, notice and hearing procedures are mandated before issuing an order, which in this case, has been delayed due to the filing of the writ petition.

Ultimately, the court decides not to interfere with the impugned notice at this stage. Instead, it directs the petitioner to respond to the notice, allowing the respondent to consider the response in accordance with the law and provide an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard, as stipulated under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. The court clarifies that if the order turns out to be adverse, the petitioner retains the right to challenge it through appropriate legal channels.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:                                      

GST Case law: