When goods of the same consignment covered by multiple invoices exceed the limit of Rs. 50,000/-, generation of e-way bill is necessary, even if the value of the individual bills are below Rs. 50,000/-
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 and rule 138 of CGST Rules— Goods in Transit -- The appellant challenged the judgment of a learned Single Judge refusing to interfere with two separate orders of detention. The respondent submitted that the goods detained have already been released on Bank guarantee. Adjudication proceedings are under process. The appellant’s counsel submitted that the proceedings initiated are without jurisdiction. The goods detained had a value of less than Rs. 50,000/- and there is an exemption as available under Rule 138. The goods detained were covered by two invoices raised by the same consignor, one dated 04.09.2020 and the other dated 05.09.2020; respectively having value of Rs. 33,748/-. In another issue, same consignor raised two separate invoices to the identical consignee with respective value of Rs. 43,836/- and Rs. 11,593/-; both dated 17.08.2020. The consignor generated e-way bills for the two invoices, but the appellant-Transport Agency did not update part B of the e-way bill. The court observed that when goods of the same consignment covered by multiple invoices exceed the limit of Rs. 50,000/-, necessarily there should be generation of e-way bill. When goods of the same consignor covered by different invoices are consigned together in one vehicle; the value will be the total of that in the multiple invoices.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ appeals.
When goods of the same consignment covered by multiple invoices exceed the limit of Rs. 50,000/-, generation of e-way bill is necessary, even if the value of the individual bills are below Rs. 50,000/-
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 and rule 138 of CGST Rules— Goods in Transit -- The appellant challenged the judgment of a learned Single Judge refusing to interfere with two separate orders of detention. The respondent submitted that the goods detained have already been released on Bank guarantee. Adjudication proceedings are under process. The appellant’s counsel submitted that the proceedings initiated are without jurisdiction. The goods detained had a value of less than Rs. 50,000/- and there is an exemption as available under Rule 138. The goods detained were covered by two invoices raised by the same consignor, one dated 04.09.2020 and the other dated 05.09.2020; respectively having value of Rs. 33,748/-. In another issue, same consignor raised two separate invoices to the identical consignee with respective value of Rs. 43,836/- and Rs. 11,593/-; both dated 17.08.2020. The consignor generated e-way bills for the two invoices, but the appellant-Transport Agency did not update part B of the e-way bill. The court observed that when goods of the same consignment covered by multiple invoices exceed the limit of Rs. 50,000/-, necessarily there should be generation of e-way bill. When goods of the same consignor covered by different invoices are consigned together in one vehicle; the value will be the total of that in the multiple invoices.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ appeals.