Babu Pulikottil Chakkapan VS The State Of Kerala

The hearing of this case involved Dr. K.P. Pradeep, the learned counsel representing the petitioner, and Smt. M.M. Jasmin, the learned Government Pleader representing the official respondents. Dr. Pradeep presented the petitioner’s arguments, while Smt. Jasmin countered them on behalf of the government.

Smt. Jasmin, the learned Government Pleader, contended that the issues raised in the writ petition involve disputed questions of fact, particularly regarding the existence of an e-way bill as mandated by Rule 138(14) of the CGST Rules. She argued that under such circumstances, the invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which deals with the power of the High Courts to issue writs, is impermissible.

Rule 138(2A) of the CGST Rules was highlighted by Smt. Jasmin, which stipulates the generation of an e-way bill either before or after the commencement of movement. Moreover, if transportation is conducted through special carriers like railways or airways, the goods should only be released by the carrier upon the production of the e-way bill. The section explicitly states that the e-way bill must be generated either before or after the commencement of movement. It was emphasized that the e-way bill must be generated before the completion of movement, as per the proviso.

In essence, Smt. Jasmin’s argument revolved around the interpretation of Rule 138(14) and its strict adherence to the procedural requirements regarding the generation of e-way bills. She highlighted the importance of factual determinations in this matter and questioned the appropriateness of entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution given the disputed nature of the facts.

The court carefully deliberated on the complex issues raised in the case. It was noted that crucial aspects, such as whether the transportation solely occurred via railways or involved other modes of conveyance, and whether the petitioner met the requirements of Rule 138(14)(b), particularly regarding transportation from Alipur to New Delhi Railway Station via a non-motorized conveyance, remained contentious and subject to factual determination. Additionally, discrepancies were found even in the e-way bill submitted, further underscoring the presence of disputed facts.

In light of these complexities and the contentious nature of the facts, the court opined that the petitioner should pursue the available statutory remedies rather than seeking relief through the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Consequently, the court declined to entertain the writ petition under Article 226. However, it reserved the liberty for the petitioner to pursue their statutory remedies in accordance with the law. As a result, the writ petition was dismissed, signaling the end of the proceedings in this jurisdiction.