Babu Pulikottil Chakkappan VS The State of Kerala

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges an order of penalty issued under section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Section 129(3) pertains to penalties related to the detention, seizure, and release of goods and conveyances in transit.

The petitioner contests the validity of the penalty imposed under this provision, alleging that it was unjustly levied or incorrectly applied. The grounds for challenge may include procedural irregularities, substantive errors in the application of the law, or violations of the principles of natural justice.

Typically, such petitions involve arguments regarding the interpretation of statutory provisions, compliance with procedural requirements under the Act, and adherence to constitutional principles such as due process and equality before the law.

The outcome of the petition will likely hinge on whether the court finds merit in the petitioner’s arguments, the adequacy of evidence presented, and the legal interpretations applied to the facts of the case. If successful, the court may quash the penalty order, modify it, or provide other appropriate relief based on its findings.

Ultimately, the writ petition seeks judicial review and redressal of grievances arising from the imposition of penalty under section 129(3) of the Act, emphasizing fair adjudication and compliance with legal standards.

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges an order imposing penalty under section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The dispute arises from the interception and detention of a CNG kit purchased by the petitioner from New Delhi, which was being transported to Poonkunnam, Thrissur. The goods were intercepted by GST authorities at Ernakulam Railway Station on 29th November 2021 at 4:00 PM.

The core issue is the imposition of a penalty despite the petitioner’s contention that there was no violation or irregularity in the transportation of the goods. The petitioner argues that the penalty imposed by the 3rd respondent under section 129(3) of the Act is unjustified, particularly alleging that there was no breach of Rule 138 of the CGST Rules.

The petitioner seeks judicial review of the penalty order, asserting that the imposition of penalty is arbitrary and without legal basis. The case involves interpretation of procedural rules under the CGST Act and the validity of penalties imposed under section 129(3), highlighting a disagreement between the petitioner and the GST authorities regarding the compliance with transportation rules and the subsequent penalty imposition.

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges an order imposing a penalty under section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the Act”). The dispute arises from the interception and detention of a CNG kit purchased by the petitioner from New Delhi and dispatched to Poonkunnam, Thrissur. On 29th November 2021, GST authorities intercepted the goods at Ernakulam Railway Station at 4 PM. Subsequently, an e-way bill was generated on the same day at 5:39 PM.

The petitioner asserts that there was no violation or irregularity in the transport of the goods and alleges that the penalty imposed under section 129(3) of the Act by the 3rd respondent is unwarranted. Specifically, the petitioner argues that there was no violation of Rule 138 of the CGST Rules, which governs the generation of e-way bills.

The crux of the petitioner’s argument, as presented by their counsel, is rooted in Rule 138 of the CGST Rules. It is contended that under certain circumstances stipulated in the rule, goods transported via railways or airways may be exempt from the immediate requirement of an e-way bill, with the provision that the e-way bill can be generated subsequent to the commencement of transportation.

The petitioner seeks relief on the grounds that the imposition of penalty under section 129(3) of the Act is not justified given the procedural compliance with Rule 138. They argue that the interception and subsequent generation of the e-way bill were within permissible legal bounds as outlined in the rules.

In essence, the petition challenges the penalty imposed on the grounds of procedural compliance with Rule 138 of the CGST Rules regarding the timing of e-way bill generation for goods transported via railways, highlighting the contention that such compliance exempts them from penalties under section 129(3) of the CGST Act.

In this writ petition challenging an order of penalty issued under section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the Act”), the petitioner purchased a CNG kit from New Delhi, which was dispatched to Poonkunnam, Thrissur. On 29-11-2021 at 4 PM, GST authorities intercepted and detained the goods at Ernakulam Railway Station. An e-way bill was subsequently generated at 5:39 PM on the same day.

The petitioner argues that there was no violation in the transport of the goods and contests the penalty imposed under section 129(3) of the Act. The crux of the petitioner’s contention lies in Rule 138 of the CGST Rules, which allows for certain exceptions regarding the necessity of an e-way bill. Specifically, it was argued that for goods transported via railways or airways, an e-way bill can be generated subsequent to the transportation. Therefore, since the goods were intercepted at the railway station and an e-way bill was generated thereafter, the petitioner asserts that this procedure was legally permissible under Rule 138.

The petitioner’s counsel contends that the imposition of penalty under section 129(3) was unwarranted due to the compliance with Rule 138, which governs the generation of e-way bills post-transportation via railways. Thus, according to the petitioner, there was no irregularity or illegality in the transportation process that would justify the penalty imposed.

In this writ petition challenging a penalty imposed under section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the Act”), the petitioner acquired a CNG kit from New Delhi, intending to transport it to Poonkunnam, Thrissur. On November 29, 2021, at 4 PM, GST authorities at Ernakulam Railway Station intercepted and detained the goods. An e-way bill was subsequently generated at 5:39 PM on the same day. The petitioner contends that no irregularity occurred during transport and disputes the penalty imposed by the 3rd respondent under section 129(3) of the Act.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that Rule 138 of the CGST Rules allows for the transport of goods without an e-way bill under certain conditions, particularly when goods are transported by railways or airways, with an e-way bill to be generated subsequently. Therefore, since the goods were intercepted at the railway station, the e-way bill generated after transportation was legally valid, and no illegality occurred during transport.

During the hearing, both Dr. K.P. Pradeep, counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. M.M. Jasmin, the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents, presented their arguments. The Government Pleader contended that the issues raised in the writ petition involve disputed factual questions, especially regarding the existence of an e-way bill as required under Rule 138(14) of the CGST Rules. She argued that such disputes are not appropriate for adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which pertains to the writ jurisdiction.

The court will need to consider whether the detention and penalty imposed were justified under section 129(3) of the Act, balancing the petitioner’s argument on compliance with Rule 138 and the Government Pleader’s stance on the factual disputes involved.