Page 81 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

2020 ] BON CARGOS PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 167
out that it is very crucial to note that all the abovesaid 3 consignments, the value
of which is below Rs. 50,000/-, consists of different commodities of the goods
concerned and it is not of the same nature and therefore there cannot be any sus-
picion about the conduct of the consignor in not generating E-way bill for the
separate consignments, which consists separate items of goods, the value of each
which is below Rs. 50,000/-. Further the Counsel for the petitioner would also
place reliance on the stand of the taxation department as shown in their official
web portal, which is extracted on page 2 of Ext.P7 as a question and answer
thereto [see page No. 26 of the paper book of this W.P. (C)] and the same reads as
follows :
If the value of the goods carried in a single conveyance is more than
50,000/- though value of all or some of the individual consignments is be-
low Rs. 50,000/- does transporter need to generate e-way bill for all such
smaller consignments?
As Rule 138(7) will be notified from a future date, hence till the notification
for that effect comes, transporter needs not generate e-way bill for con-
signments having value less than Rs. 50,000/- even if the value of the goods
carried in single conveyance is more than Rs. 50,000/- till the said sub-rule
is notified.”
10. It is pointed out that the said stand of the department is substantial-
ly fully in favour of the petitioner, inasmuch as it is made clear that till Rule
138(7) is notified to be brought in force, the transporter need not generate e-way
bills for consignments having value less than Rs. 50,000/-, even if the value of the
goods carried in a single conveyance is more than Rs. 50,000/-.
11. Per contra, Smt. M.M. Jasmine, Learned Government Pleader would
argue that the said aspect born from page 2 of Ext.P7 may not be relevant inas-
much as the provisions contained in Rule 138(7) will not cover the facts of this
case, since what is envisaged in that sub-rule is inter-State supply, whereas in the
instant case, it is admittedly intra-State supply.
12. Further, the Learned Government Pleader would argue that by vir-
tue of the mandatory force of sub-rule (1) of Rule 138, the obligation to generate
the part A and part B of the e-way bill is fastened on every registered persons,
who cause of movement of goods of consignment, the value of which exceeds
Rs. 50,000/- etc. and that the mandatory sweep of that provision cannot be per-
mitted to be diluted by an act of the consignor in having separate consignments,
the value of each of which is being below Rs. 50,000/- and in a case, where the
aggregate value of such consignments causes threshold of Rs. 50,000/-. In such a
case, the authorities concerned are right in taking the abovesaid impugned stand
as reflected in the impugned Ext.P5 detention order.
13. After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and
circumstances of this case, it is seen that the value of the tax and penalty de-
manded as per impugned Ext.P5 order is only Rs. 20,274/- and the adjudication
proceedings in pursuance to the impugned Ext.P5 detention order has not been
finalised as of now in accordance with the law. True that some of the abovesaid
contentions urged by the petitioner more particularly, the contention based on
page 2 of Ext.P7 would really deserve serious consideration at the hands of the
authorities while finalizing the adjudication proceedings in pursuance to Ext.P5
detention order. This Court is of the view that taking note of the nature of the
course of action now projected before this Court, the case is only at the stage of
detention of the goods and the vehicle concerned and therefore, this Court is of
the considered view that the abovesaid rival contentions raised by both sides
need not be resolved by this Court at this stage of the matter.
GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  81