The failure to consider the petitioner’s case in the light of the provisions of Rule 138(10) which prescribes the validity of an e-way bill with the extension of further period by eight hours after the expiry has resulted in an improper and untenable order.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017—Goods in Transit – The petitioner prayed for quashing the notice dated 07.01.2019 and Order dated 08.01.2019. The petitioner submitted that e-way bills were valid from 31.12.2018 10.37 pm to 1.1.2019. The respondent visited his premises and issued an order for physical verification culminating in notice dated 7.1.2019 under the provisions of Section 129[3] of the Act and served with demand dated 8.1.2019. His appeal is dismissed by the order dated 28.11.2019. The petitioner submitted that conveyance reached the place of destination on 1.1.2019 before the expiry of the validity of the e-way bills but the vehicles could not be unloaded on the same day and were being unloaded on 2.1.2019. The authorities while not disputing these assertions contend that the e-way bills had to be valid even as at the time of the inspection as the vehicles were being unloaded from the conveyance. The court observed that there is no dispute that the conveyance had reached the place of destination well within the expiry of e-way bills, and the conveyance was being unloaded without any further transit.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the petition and quashed the order dated 28.11.2019 and order dated 08.01.2019
The failure to consider the petitioner’s case in the light of the provisions of Rule 138(10) which prescribes the validity of an e-way bill with the extension of further period by eight hours after the expiry has resulted in an improper and untenable order.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017—Goods in Transit – The petitioner prayed for quashing the notice dated 07.01.2019 and Order dated 08.01.2019. The petitioner submitted that e-way bills were valid from 31.12.2018 10.37 pm to 1.1.2019. The respondent visited his premises and issued an order for physical verification culminating in notice dated 7.1.2019 under the provisions of Section 129[3] of the Act and served with demand dated 8.1.2019. His appeal is dismissed by the order dated 28.11.2019. The petitioner submitted that conveyance reached the place of destination on 1.1.2019 before the expiry of the validity of the e-way bills but the vehicles could not be unloaded on the same day and were being unloaded on 2.1.2019. The authorities while not disputing these assertions contend that the e-way bills had to be valid even as at the time of the inspection as the vehicles were being unloaded from the conveyance. The court observed that there is no dispute that the conveyance had reached the place of destination well within the expiry of e-way bills, and the conveyance was being unloaded without any further transit.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the petition and quashed the order dated 28.11.2019 and order dated 08.01.2019