Tvl. Thiruvannamalaiyar Transport VS The Deputy State Tax Officer, Special Rowing Squad & Another

In the present matter, the court is addressing a writ petition along with a writ miscellaneous petition. The counsel for the writ petitioner, Mr. B. Raveendran, and the Government Advocate (Taxes), Mr. T.N.C. Kaushik, representing both respondents, are present before the court.

The court notes that its current order should be read in conjunction with previous proceedings from December 9th and December 12th, 2022. On December 9th, 2022, the writ petition was in the Admission Board, and Mr. B. Raveendran began making submissions, with the matter kept for further hearing. The petition challenges proceedings dated December 2nd, 2022, referred to as ‘impugned proceedings,’ made by the respondent under various sections of tax acts.

The impugned proceedings were made concerning a truck intercepted at Walaja toll while carrying a consignment described as ‘Angles’ from Gummidipoondi to Ranipet. The grounds for the proceedings were that the e-way bill had expired.

Referring to the Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, as substantive legislation under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, the counsel for the writ petitioner highlighted Rule 138, which deals with the validity of the e-way bill. The counsel likely argued that the impugned proceedings were not in accordance with the said Rules.

Continuing, the court will now dispose of the main writ petition and the writ miscellaneous petition. Both counsels have presented their arguments, and the court will deliver its decision based on the submissions and relevant legal provisions.

The court convened to address the main writ petition and a related writ miscellaneous petition (WMP), with Mr. B. Raveendran representing the writ petitioner and Mr. T.N.C. Kaushik serving as the Government Advocate (Taxes) for both respondents.

The order is contextualized within previous proceedings on 09.12.2022 and 12.12.2022, wherein the writ petition was initially brought to the Admission Board, subsequently re-notified for consideration, and ultimately listed for further hearing. The writ petition challenges certain proceedings dated 02.12.2022, conducted by the respondent under various tax acts, including the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (C-G&ST Act), State/Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The impugned proceedings pertain to the detention of a truck carrying a consignment described as ‘Angles’ from Gummidipoondi to Ranipet, intercepted at Walaja toll due to an expired e-way bill. The petitioner argues that according to Rule 138 of the Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, specifically Rule 138(10), the e-way bill’s validity can be extended within 8 hours of expiry. At the time of interception, the e-way bill had expired at 23:59 hours on 01.12.2022, leaving 4 hours for extension, which the petitioner claims was not feasible due to portal blockage upon interception.

The Revenue counsel cites a previous court order dated 25.08.2022, suggesting that in such cases, the consignment owner, not the transporter, should appear before the court. However, the court distinguishes this order, stating it applies to cases where goods lack accompanying documents or have deficient documentation, unlike the present case. Reference is made to the Padma Sundara Rao case law (Padma Sundara Rao Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2002), particularly paragraph 9, emphasizing the importance of factual context in legal judgments.

The court is poised to deliver its decision, considering the arguments presented and the relevant legal precedents.

circumstances, the Court proceeded with the hearing of the captioned main writ petition and its related Writ Miscellaneous Petition (WMP). Mr. B. Raveendran, representing the writ petitioner, and Mr. T.N.C. Kaushik, the Government Advocate (Taxes) representing both respondents, were present before the Court.

This order is a continuation of previous proceedings dated 09.12.2022 and 12.12.2022, where the writ petition was discussed and scheduled for further hearings. The petition challenges proceedings dated 02.12.2022, issued by the respondent under various sections of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (C-G&ST Act), the State/Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Integrated G&T Act). These proceedings were in relation to the detention of a truck carrying a consignment described as ‘Angles’ from Gummidipoondi to Ranipet, due to an expired e-way bill.

The writ petitioner argued that according to Rule 138(10) of the Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, the validity of the e-way bill could be extended within 8 hours from its expiry. The petitioner claimed that at the time of interception, there were still 4 hours left for the extension, but due to a blocked portal, it couldn’t be done. The Revenue counsel referred to a previous order and argued that the owner of the consignment should approach the Court, not the transporter. However, the Court found this order distinguishable from the current case and highlighted the importance of considering factual contexts, citing the Padma Sundara Rao case law.

The Revenue counsel informed the Court that the respondent had passed an order the previous day, imposing a penalty of Rs. 6,76,764. Although under normal circumstances, the writ petition might have become infructuous, it was actively being heard by the Court when the order was passed. The seven-day timeline prescribed by Section 129(3) for the payment of penalty had not expired when the order was made. Considering the unique circumstances, the Court proceeded to deliberate on the case.