Latest GST Judgments

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on GST
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our GST Library

Detention of goods being personal effects is illegal

E-Way Bill — Goods in Transit in absence of E-way bill—purchase of personal effects from other state—In the instant case, the issue is—
whether the omission to upload e-way bill with respect to the transport of a car purchased in Puthuchery, by a person normally residing in Thiruvananthapuram, attracts Section 129 of KSGST Act.
Held that— When, a resident of Trivandrum purchases a car in Puthuchery, takes possession of the same, obtain temporary registration in his name and takes out an insurance cover for a period of one year, also in his name; which insurance cover is mandatory under Section 146 of the M.V. Act, the presumption can only be that the delivery was effected in Puthuchery itself. All of these factors indicate that the transfer of property in goods vests with the purchaser, at Puthucherry itself, wherein the supply terminated. For all we can see, the purchaser could then take a tour of the country and then come to his residence at Trivandrum or take it into any other State and use it there during the one month period, in which the vehicle can be used on the roads by virtue of the temporary registration. The registration obtained in one State is also effective throughout India by virtue of Section 46 of the M.V. Act. This is the volition of the purchaser and the movement of the goods after the supply has terminated, in accordance with Sections 7 & 8, read with Section 10 of the IG&ST Act is not the concern of the taxing authorities or even the motor vehicle authorities, the latter of whom is only concerned with the permanent registration being made within the State in which the vehicle is proposed to be used. The requirement also is that, necessarily the vehicle would have to be permanently registered in the State in which the purchaser has his residence or place of business and normally intends to keep it for use as provided in Section 42 of the M.V. Act.
The issue of certificate of permanent registration is under Rule 48 after verification of the documents furnished therein. A conspectus of the above provisions would indicate that it was perfectly possible for the dealer to have transported the vehicle on the strength of a trade certificate but however, made the delivery of the vehicle in Thiruvananthapuram only after taking either a temporary registration or a permanent one from the registering authority having jurisdiction over Thiruvnanathapuram.
Here, undoubtedly the vehicle was temporarily registered at Puthuchery. It cannot be said that the temporary registration cannot decide the aspect of sale, especially when the temporary registration was taken out in the name of the purchaser. If the vehicle need not be moved out of the dealership for the purpose of temporary registration, the question arises as how it ran for 17 kilometers; obviously after the registration. The transfer of property of goods was occasioned on the temporary registration being made, but, however, the seller-dealer understood it as an inter-state sale since the purchase was intended for use in a State other than the State from which the sale was affected. The purchaser had also paid IGST, a portion of which would be accrued to the State in which eventually the car would be used.
The transport cannot be understood as one in the course of sale for the purpose of supply at Thiruvananthapuram. The service of transportation was for a consideration on which also tax was paid by the dealer. The transportation was by the logistics wing of the selling dealer who had collected tax on the consideration for the service rendered.
Though a temporary registration it has to be noticed that there is absolutely no enabling provision, though also no prohibition, in getting a permanent registration of the vehicle by yet another person. We also have to notice that even if such a provision existed, a second sale of the motor vehicle is not taxable within the State, unless there is a premium on the original sale price as seen from Notification No.8/2018 Central Tax-(Rate). Hence on these two grounds, of an intra-State sale having occasioned and the transport being of used personal effects, we find that the detention was illegal.
Having found the detention to be without sanction of law, the vehicle having been already released, what remains is to quash the notice issued and the order passed, under Section 129, both being illegal and totally without jurisdiction — Kun Motor Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Vishnu Mohan Vs. ASTO, Squad No. III — [2018] 7 TAXLOK.COM 011 (Ker)