Case Title | J. K. Jain Buildtech India Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner |
Court | Calcutta High Court |
Honorable Judges | Justice Aniruddha Roy |
Citation | 2023 (04) GSTPanacea 239 HC Calcutta WPA 3415 OF 2022 |
Judgment Date | 03-April-2023 |
In a legal proceeding, it was noted that on two prior occasions, the respondents had opted not to have representation, resulting in the writ petition being unable to progress for consideration. However, during the current session, Mr. Bikramaditya Ghosh, accompanied by Mr. Subir Kumar Saha, represented the respondents as learned counsel. The petitioner had initiated this writ petition to contest an order issued on December 2, 2022, by the statutory appellate authority chaired by the Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Siliguri, headquartered in Siliguri, as detailed on page 65 of the writ petition.
The petitioner in this case faced defeat before the appellate authority due to their inability to produce relevant invoices in physical form. However, Mr. Sandip Choraria, the learned counsel representing the petitioner, argued that according to Rule 138A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, sub-Rule (1)(a) does not mandate physical production of invoices. He contended that presenting invoices electronically, whether on a mobile device or any other electronic medium carried by the person-in-charge of the conveyance, should suffice. Mr. Choraria further argued that while sub-Rule (1)(b) requires e-way bills to be in physical form, there’s no such mandate for invoices. He asserted that the absence of the term “physical form” in relation to invoices implies that digital presentation should be acceptable.
On the other hand, Mr. Bikramaditya Ghosh, representing the respondents, countered this argument. He maintained that the requirement for e-way bills to be in physical form indicates a legislative intention for physical documentation. However, Ghosh did not address the absence of this requirement for invoices directly.
The crux of the legal dispute lies in the interpretation of Rule 138A and whether it necessitates physical presentation of invoices. The petitioner’s argument hinges on the absence of explicit language mandating physical form for invoices, while the respondent’s argument leans on the distinction made for e-way bills, implying an intention for physical documentation in certain cases.
The outcome of this case would likely depend on how the court interprets the relevant rules and whether they find merit in the petitioner’s argument regarding the sufficiency of digital presentation of invoices. It raises broader questions about the adaptation of legal frameworks to technological advancements and the balance between traditional documentation practices and modern digital methods.
The provision under sub-Rule 138A pertains to the obligations of the person-in-charge of a conveyance or vehicle regarding the documentation required for the movement of goods. It mandates that the person-in-charge must carry certain documents and devices for verification by the relevant authority if needed. Specifically, the person-in-charge is required to carry the invoice, bill of supply, or delivery challan, whichever is applicable, in physical form. Additionally, they must carry a copy of the e-way bill either physically or electronically, or have a Radio Frequency Identification Device (RFID) embedded onto the conveyance, as specified by the Commissioner.
However, there are exceptions outlined in the provision. Clause (b) exempts the requirement of carrying an e-way bill or its number in electronic form if the goods are transported by rail, air, or vessel. Moreover, in the case of imported goods, the person-in-charge must also carry a copy of the bill of entry filed by the importer and indicate the relevant details in Part A of FORM GST EWB – 01.
The decision mentioned in the reading emphasizes the importance of compliance with these requirements. In the specific case cited, the person-in-charge of the conveyance failed to carry the invoice in physical form, leading to the rejection of their appeal. The court highlights the relevance of the provision in understanding the dispute at hand and underscores the necessity for adherence to the specified documentation procedures.
Download Pdf:
For Reference Visit:
Read Another Case Law: