Case of Kun Motor Company Vs Asstt. Sales Tax Officer reported in 2018-TIOL-163-HC-KERALA-GST
A person from Trivandrum goes to Pondicherry, purchases a car, and entrusts it to the car dealer to transport it to Trivandrum. On the way, in Kerala, the officials under the GST Act, intercept the vehicle and detain the goods, for no e-way bill accompanies the consignment. After responding to the statutory notice and after suffering a penalty order under section 129 of the GST Act, both the dealer and the purchaser file this writ petition.
2. Should the transport at the behest of an individual, an unregistered person, suffer the same statutory limitations as does the transport by a registered person or transporter? Does the second proviso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 138 of the KSGST Rules save the transaction? And can we treat the car, sought to be transported without an e way bill, as an item of "used personal and household effects"?
Decision of high court
Law, at times, can be harsh, and the Courts, usually, defer to the legislative wisdom - if the conditions under the CGST Act and Rules are not complied with, definitely Section 129 operates and confiscation would be attracted - Respondents are entitled to adjudication, but they would have to prove that the goods being transported stand exempted from the rigours of the GST regime - either of the petitioners can get the goods released by complying with section 129 and the relevant rules, and seek an early adjudication of the dispute –
The High Court while delivering the above judgment followed the precedent laid down by the Kerala High Court in the case of Indus Towers reported in 2018-TIOL-67-HC-Kerala-GST.