The captioned writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment as it involves common question of fact and law, on behalf of the same petitioner in respect of the seizure of the goods and vehicle pertaining to different invoices. Pith and substance of the both the writ petitions in brief are as follows:

2. On 19.08.2020 and on 08.09.2020, conveyance of the vehicles of the petitioner bearing registration Nos. KL 17 M 5392 and KL 02 BE 1215 for intrastate transport of goods but with different consignors and consignee, were intercepted by the 1st respondent. The consignors in accordance with their accounting practice generated e-way bills for two invoices separately though mandatorily under GST regime did not require eway bill where the value of the consignment is less than ₹ 50,000/-. The 1st respondent after intercepting the conveyance, recorded the statement of the driver and detained the goods under Section 129 (3) of the GST Act.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that it is not incumbent upon transporter to comply with the part B of the e-way bills in respect of consignment less than ₹ 50,000/-. Consignment is not defined under the GST Act, however, explanation 2 to Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 138 specifies that the consignments of value of goods shall be the value, declared in an invoice, bill of supply or a delivery challan. So when there were two invoices it constituted two consignments as far as the petitioner, who is a transporter, is concerned whereas Sub-Rule 7 of Rule 138 stated the transporter is with obligation to generate e-way bill when the aggregate of the value of the goods carried in a conveyance is more than ₹ 50,000/-. Thus the entire exercise on behalf of the respondents intercepting the vehicle and goods is without jurisdiction much less illegal and prayed that the detention orders under Section 129(3), Ext.P6 in W.P. (C).No. 18324/2020 and Ext.P4 in W.P.(C).No.18565/2020 are liable to be quashed and also sought for release of the goods in accordance with law.

4. On the other hand Sri.C.,K.Govindan, learned Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the state opposed the writ petitions by raising multiple arguments.

5. The present writ petitions are not maintainable as an efficacious remedy of appeal is available. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.8942/2019 and 8944/2019 arising out of SLPs Nos. 25292/2019 and 27609/2019 in respect of the matters pertaining to state of Uttar Pradesh where the modus operandi of transporters and owners of the goods for release thereof, moving writ petition and its disposal after the release of the goods had been deprecated. He submitted that such a practice of filing writ petitions are not maintainable as the orders of the previous courts are contrary to the provisions of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act (CGST Act) as it is in the realm of the authorities to process the claims of the concerned assessees as per stipulation contained under Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 141 framed therein and urges this Court for dismissal of this writ petition.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the book, I am of the view that the contention of the petitioner in the present writ petitions by relying upon the provisions of Sub-Rule 7 of Rule 138 is wholly fallacious and illegal much less misplaced as Rule 138 falling under chapter XVI pertains to e-way Rules ie., the information to be furnished prior to the commencement of the movement of the goods and generation of e-way bills. No doubt Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 138 envisage that every registered person who causes movement of goods of consignment having a value exceeding rupees fifty thousand in relation to supply; or for reasons other than supply; or due to inward supply from an unregistered person is mandatorily required before commencement of such movement, to furnish information relating to the said movement as specified in part A of Form GST EWB-01 electronically on the common portal along with such other information as may be required on the common portal, whereby the unique number would be generated on the said portal provided further that the transporter on an authorisation received from a registered person may furnish information in part A of GST EWB-01 electronically on the common portal whereas Sub-Rule 7 envisages that where the consignor or the consignee have not generated e-way bill in Form GST EWB-01 where the aggregate of the consignor value of the goods carried in the conveyance is more than ₹ 50,000/- the transporter except in the case of the transportation of goods by railways, air and vessel, shall, in respect of inter-state supply generate the e-way bill in Form GST EWB-01 on the basis of invoice or bill of supply.

7. Emphatic reliance upon the interpretation of Rule 7 that it is the duty of the transporter or the consignor, consignee to generate e-way bill when the aggregate value of the consignment is more than ₹ 50,000/- and if otherwise ie., less than ₹ 50,000/- there is no such requirement is not acceptable and of no avail in view of the provisions of sub Rules 3 and 7 of Rule 138 of CGST Act.

For the sake of brevity Sub Rules 3 and 7 of Rule 138 of CGST Act, 2017 is produced herein below:

“(3) Where the e-way bill is not generated under sub-rule (2) and the goods are handed over to a transporter for transportation by road, the registered person shall furnish the information relating to the transporter on the common portal and the e-way bill shall be generated by the transporter on the said portal on the basis of the information furnished by the registered person in Part A of FORM GST EWB-01:

PROVIDED that the registered person or, the transporter may, at his option, generate and carry the e-way bill even if the value of the consignment is less than fifty thousand rupees:  

PROVIDED FURTHER that where the movement is caused by an unregistered person either in his own conveyance or a hired one or through a transporter, he or the transporter may, at their option, generate the e-way bill in FORM GST EWB-01on the common portal in the manner specified in this rule:

PROVIDED ALSO that where the goods are transported for a distance of upto fifty kilometers within the State or Union territory from the place of business of the consignor to the place of business of the transporter for further transportation, the supplier or the recipient, or as the case may be, the transporter may not furnish the details of conveyance in Part B of FORM GST EWB-01.

Explanation 1: For the purposes of this sub-rule, where the goods are supplied by an unregistered supplier to a recipient who is registered, the movement shall be said to be caused by such recipient if the recipient is known at the time of commencement of the movement of goods.

Explanation 2: The e-way bill shall not be valid for movement of goods by road unless the information in Part-B of FORM GST EWB-01 has been furnished except in the case of movements covered under the third proviso to sub-rule (3) and the proviso to sub-rule (5).

*[(7) Where the consignor or the consignee has not generated the e-way bill in FORM GST EWB-01 and the aggregate of the consignment value of goods carried in the conveyance is more than fifty thousand rupees, the transporter, except in case of transportation of goods by railways, air and vessel, shall, in respect of inter-State supply, generate the e-way bill in FORM GST EWB-01 on the basis of invoice or bill of supply or delivery challan, as the case may be, and may also generate a consolidated e-way bill in FORM GST EWB-02 on the common portal prior to the movement of goods:

PROVIDED that where the goods to be transported are supplied through an e-commerce operator or a courier agency, the information in Part A of FORM GST EWB-01 may be furnished by such e-commerce operator or courier agency.]”

8. Rules have to be read in conjunction and not in isolation. On plain and simple reading of proviso to Sub Rule 3 it is evident that registered person or transporter at his option is obliged to generate and carry e-way bill even if the value of the consignment is less than ₹ 50,000/-. The orders under challenge in my view are amaenable to appeal as per the provisions of Section 107 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. I would refrain myself from commenting further on the veracity of the orders except the observation made herein above in view of the interpretation of the Rules as High Court under Article 226 cannot assume the role of an appellate court.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the unreported judgment cited above deprecated the practice of litigants in filing writ petition for release of the articles subject to the securities and other amounts on the premise that a complete procedure has been prescribed in Section 67 of the 2017 Act and Rule 144(1).

In other words, in all cases of seizure in order to obliterate inconsistency in the application of law and do away with the multiple appeals, discretion has been left to the competent authority to decide the adjudication as early as possible in accordance with law. In view of what has been noticed above these writ petitions are bereft of merit and accordingly dismissed.