Order Date: 17 May 2022

Facts:

• The Petitioner, M/s Sleevco Traders, is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of PVC Resin. A purchase order was received from K.R. Industries, Sandila, U.P. for supply of PVC Resin. In turn, the petitioner placed its purchase order to SAFE Climber, Thane, Maharashtra, who send the goods on 31.1.2020 through Invoice No. SC/1994 19-20.
• The e-way bill was also generated where the sender’s name has been mentioned as SAFE Climber and ship to K.R. Industries (Sandila). The said e-way bill was valid for a period up to 15.02.2020 along with bill builty of New Sagar Indore Transport Corporation, the contract was also accompanying.
• The said consignment was onward journey from Maharastra to Sandila, (U.P.) through Vehicle no. MP 09 HH9980. After reaching the said goods in the State of U.P., the same was intercepted by Mobile Squad at Kanpur and detained the vehicle on 7.2.2020.
• A Show Cause Notice was issued under Section 129 (3) of the CGST Act for determining the tax and penalty in respect of release of the goods and vehicle in Form GST-MOV-07 dated 7.2.2020 and pursuant to the same impugned order was passed.
• The case of the revenue is that as per the provisions any amount more than Rs. 50,000/- as mentioned in the tax invoice requires for generation of e-way bill. The tax invoice raised by the petitioner bearing tax Invoice no. 636 dated 31.1.2020 was not supported by e-way bill.

Issue:

• Whether, the demand of the respondent to the petitioner for non-generation of e-way bill is correct or not?

Order:

• The High Court observed that it is not the case of the department that the goods which were coming in pursuance of the purchase order of the petitioner from Maharashtra which were to be delivered to the buyer of the petitioner i.e. K.R. Industries, Sandila, U.P. is different than the goods mentioned in the tax invoice given by the petitioner. 
• Once the goods in question i.e. PVC Resin which was coming from Maharashtra and was to be delivered at Sandila to K.R. Industries, tax invoice on which I.G.S.T. was charged has not been disputed, therefore, no contravention of the provisions of the Act can be attributed.
• Therefore, the writ petition was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.