Hemanth Motors VS The State Of Karnataka

The petitioner has initiated this petition with multiple prayers, including a request to declare Section 129 of the KGST/CGST Act, 2017 as null and void, and ultra vires the Constitution of India, or to strike down the said provisions as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Additionally, the petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned notices and orders issued by the respondents.

However, the learned counsel representing the petitioner has indicated that, given the specific facts and circumstances of the case, they intend to confine the writ petition to the prayers listed under Columns [b] and [c] above. This suggests that the focus of the petitioner’s legal challenge will be on seeking the annulment or quashing of specific notices and orders issued by the respondents, rather than challenging the constitutional validity of Section 129 of the KGST/CGST Act, 2017.

By narrowing down the scope of the petition, the petitioner’s legal strategy appears to be aimed at addressing the immediate grievances related to the impugned notices and orders, potentially streamlining the legal proceedings and focusing on the specific issues at hand. This strategic decision underscores the importance of carefully tailoring legal actions to best address the concerns and objectives of the petitioner within the constraints of the legal framework and the circumstances of the case.

The petitioner, a dealer specializing in TVS motor vehicles and registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, made purchases of two-wheeler vehicles from a wholesale dealer on December 31, 2018. These motor vehicles were invoiced and dispatched from Hosur, Tamil Nadu, to the designated destination at Doddaballapura Road, Yelahanka, Bengaluru. Corresponding e-way bills were generated for these transactions, valid from December 31, 2018, 10:37 PM, to January 1, 2019.

However, the third respondent conducted a visit to the petitioner’s premises and subsequently issued an order for physical verification. This verification process led to the issuance of a notice on January 7, 2019, under Section 129(3) of the Act, along with other relevant provisions. Additionally, the petitioner received a demand notice dated January 8, 2019, as per Annexure-B.

In response to these actions, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 107(11) of the KGST Act. However, this appeal was dismissed by an order dated November 28, 2019. Consequently, the petitioner has approached the court with prayers as mentioned above, seeking relief from the notices and orders issued by the respondents.

This summary outlines the sequence of events leading to the petitioner’s legal challenge, highlighting the issuance of notices and orders by the authorities, the subsequent appeal, and the petitioner’s recourse to the judicial system seeking redressal.

The crux of the dispute in this case revolves around a specific issue. Both parties agree that the petitioner ensured the transportation of vehicles under valid e-way bills, which were active from December 31, 2018, at 10:37 PM to January 1, 2019. The contention arises regarding the timing of unloading the vehicles at the destination.

The petitioner asserts that although the conveyance carrying the vehicles arrived at the destination on January 1, 2019, before the expiration of the e-way bills, the unloading process took place on January 2, 2019. Conversely, the authorities argue that the e-way bills needed to remain valid at the time of inspection during unloading.

This disagreement essentially centers on the interpretation of the e-way bill regulations concerning the timing of validity in relation to the inspection during unloading. While the petitioner emphasizes the validity of the e-way bills at the time of transportation and arrival at the destination, the authorities stress the importance of the e-way bills remaining valid during the unloading process.

This summary highlights the narrow scope of the dispute, focusing on the differing interpretations of the e-way bill regulations regarding the timing of validity in relation to the unloading process. Resolving this issue is crucial in determining the legality of the actions taken by the authorities and the petitioner’s compliance with relevant regulations.

In the given scenario, where it is undisputed that the conveyance reached its destination within the validity period of the e-way bills, and there was no further transit involved as the unloading process was underway, the court finds that the appellate authority should have evaluated the merits of the case against the petitioners. This evaluation should have been conducted in accordance with Rule 138(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which allows for the extension of the validity period of an e-way bill by an additional eight hours after its expiry.

The court asserts that the failure to consider the petitioner’s case in light of Rule 138(10) has led to an improper and untenable order. This rule provides a mechanism for addressing situations where the transportation process extends slightly beyond the original validity period of the e-way bill due to factors such as unloading delays.

By not taking into account this provision, the appellate authority overlooked an essential aspect of the case, which could have influenced the outcome of the proceedings in favor of the petitioners. This failure to consider relevant regulations has resulted in an unjust outcome, highlighting the importance of applying statutory provisions comprehensively and accurately in adjudicating disputes related to taxation and transportation regulations.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: