Page 79 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

2020 ] BON CARGOS PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 165
was intercepted by the 2nd respondent. Pursuant to an inspection, the vehicle
and the goods contained therein were detained by the 2nd respondent on the
ground that Part B of the E-way Bill that facilitates transportation of goods, was
not updated, by the petitioner. The specific case of the petitioner is that the value
of goods (which are distinct and having separate HSN numbers) as per invoices
is less than Rs. 50,000/- and therefore, there is no requirement of generation of
E-way Bills, going by Rule 138 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The 2nd respondent has
proceeded to impose a fine and a penalty on the petition totaling up to
Rs. 20,274/- upon the payment of which only, the conveyance and the goods
would be released.
4. That the action of the 2nd respondent is wholly arbitrary since Rule
138 of the CGST, Rules clearly prescribes that a transporter/GTA is required to
update Part B of the E-way Bill only in the event that value of each individual
consignment is above Rs. 50,000/-. On the facts of the case, four invoices were
raised by the Consignor of which only one was worth more than Rs. 50,000/- on
account of which, the petitioner duly updated Part B of the E-Way Bill for this
particular invoice. However the remaining consignments were under the
Rs. 50,000/- threshold and hence, there was no legal obligation on the petitioner,
whatsoever, to update Part B of these invoices. Consignments are to be consid-
ered individually and not as a sum of all the goods carried in a conveyance and
therefore, the detention of the Petitioner’s vehicles and goods as also the arbi-
trary imposition of tax and penalty are unsustainable in the eyes of law.
5. The main contentions urged by the petitioner are as follows :
(a) That the petitioner is challenging the continued detainment of its
conveyance and the goods contained therein by the 2nd respondent.
(b) That the petitioner is also challenging the arbitrary imposition of tax
and penalty by the 2nd respondent for want of Part B of the E-way
Bill.
(c) That Part B of E-way Bill in FORM GST EWB-01 is only required to
be updated by a GTA if the value of each consignment if worth
more than 50,000/-.
(d) where the value of each consignment is below such amount, the pe-
titioner cannot be held liable for not updating Part B since the stat-
ute imposes no such condition.
(e) The issuance of separate invoices are owing to the fact that the
goods are of four distinct specifications for which one common in-
voice cannot be raised. Further, separate E-Way Bills with four dis-
tinct Part A’s were raised by the consignor. The transporter is re-
quired to raise Part B only to the corresponding Part A, value des-
ignation in which is more than Rs. 50,000/-.
(f) That the Act does not make any prescription that where the Con-
signor, the Consignee and the date of invoices are the same, one
common invoice/E-way Bill has to be raised. The goods here are
distinct.
(g) That since there has been no statutory breach on the part of the peti-
tioner, the conveyance and the goods may be released and the im-
position of tax and liability, quashed.
6. It is urged by Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the
consignor supplied electric goods in different HSN code, and therefore, raised
GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  79