A Single Bench of the Allahabad High Court has recently dismissed the writ petition (order dated 27th February 2023) filed by M/s Ayann Traders against the GST notice and order under Section 129(3) of the U P GST Act, 2017 for transporting goods 10 days after the generation of e-way bill.
Brief facts of the case
The case of the petitioner was that the e-way bill was generated on 08-04-2018 with vehicle number and transporter’s name but goods were moved on 17-04-2018. The reason for delay transporting was that the vehicle as specified in e-way bill was made available on 17-04-2018.
Brief arguments by the petitioner
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the taxing authorities were wrong to pass the order impugned as the goods, which were being transported, were carrying all necessary documents i.e. tax invoice and e-way bill. According to him, the e-way bill was generated on 08.04.2018 itself and the vehicle number was mentioned.
Brief arguments by the respondent
On the other hand, Standing Counsel of the respondent, while opposing writ petition submitted that the e-way bill, which was generated on 08.04.2018, specifically mentioned the vehicle number.
Further, the transporter bill also mentioned the vehicle number, which means that transit of goods had taken place. He further submitted that according to provision of Rule 138 (9) of CGST are clear that in case, goods are not transported as per the details furnished in e-way bill, the same may be cancelled electronically on the common portal within 24 hours of generation. If the vehicle was not made available by the transporter, the dealer could have cancelled the e-way bill.
The Hon’ble High Court observed and held that –
If movement of goods has not commenced, the legislature has provided for a way out through Rule 138(9) whereby e-way bill which has been generated on the common portal, may be cancelled electronically. A safeguard has been provided that it cannot be cancelled if it has been verified in transit in accordance with Rule 138-B. The dealer in the present case had waited for 10 long days and did not cancel the e-way bill generated by him on common portal, though, the vehicle was not provided by the transporter.
The court therefore, finds that there has been a complete misuse of statutory provision of the Act and Rules by the dealer. The inference drawn by the taxing authorities after interception of goods on 18.04.2018 needs no interference by this Court.
