The appeal impugns the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which refused to interfere with Exhibit P4(a) & (b) order of detention and notice issued to the appellant under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [‘CGST Act’ for brevity]. The learned Single Judge directed release of the goods and vehicle on furnishing Bank Guarantee for the amount demanded in the impugned notice.
2. The appellant is a registered dealer in tiles. A consignment of ceramic tiles was detained at Palarivattom on 06.11.2020 by a squad of the Department and Exhibits P4, P4(a) and P4(b) were issued. The reason for detention and issuance of notice was the fact that the validity of the e-way bill, accompanying the vehicle, had expired. The learned Counsel for the appellant points out from the provision applicable, i.e., Rule 138(10) of the CGST Rules, that the third proviso enables the validity of an e-way bill to be extended, within eight hours from the time of expiry. The expiry of the e-way bill is at 12.00 night of 05.11.2020 while the detention was just 1½ hours after that, i.e., at 1.30 a.m. on 06.11.2020. It is also submitted that the appellant is entitled to one additional day for every 20 Kms. or part thereof, since the consignment was by road and sea; thus coming under the definition of multimodal shipment. The learned Single Judge held that violence will be caused to the language employed, if the more beneficial provision is made applicable merely for reason of the transport being multimodal; of which one leg involved transport by ship. As far as the enabling provision which permitted extension within eight hours it was found that the appellant did not attempt to so extend the validity period. The writ petition, hence, was rejected with directions as noted above.
3. The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that Exhibits P1 and P1(a) were not available with the transporter. The e-way bills accompanying the two separate consignments, one originates from Lalpar and the other from Bela Rangpar, both in Gujarat. The updation of the e-way bill as found in the documents produced before this Court was not accompanying the goods. From Exhibits P1 and P1(a) it is pointed out that the last updation made in the e-way bill refers to the consignment having been transported from Kottarakkara on 05.11.2020 at 4.20 p.m. The learned Government Pleader specifically submits that the consignment detained was not that shipped from Gujarat, which probably had already reached the dealer’s premises at Kottarakkara when the detention was made at Palarivattom, Ernakulam.
4. We see from Rule 138(10) that the specific period for which an e-way bill is valid is evident from the table under that rule. Serial Nos.1 and 2 deals with cargo other than Over Dimensional Cargo [hereinafter ‘ODC’] and serial Nos.3 and 4 with ODC. ODC is cargo having dimensions in excess of the vehicle in which it is carried. The contention of the appellant is that the amendment by which an insertion was made in 2019 takes in multimodal shipment in which at least one leg involves transport by ship and whether it be an ODC or goods other than ODC, Serial Nos.3 and 4 of the Table would be applicable. We do not see the appellant having been taken benefit of the extended period when uploading and updating the e-way bill. The fact that multimodal transport, including one leg by sea, having figured in all the three serial numbers indicates the distinction of ODC and other than ODC having been retained even after the insertion. This is an anomaly which, however, this Court cannot consider having intended only for serial No.4.
5. The next contention is with respect to the enabling proviso under Rule 138(10). We perfectly agree with the submission of the learned Senior Government Pleader that this would only enable the consignee to update the e-way bill extending the period provided under the Table; within eight hours from the time of its expiry. The learned Senior Government Pleader has vehemently argued that there is no authority for the appellant to commence the transport without such extension being carried out within eight hours; which we agree with. If the shipment could be cleared only just before or after the period of expiry of the e-way bill, then there could be an extension made by an updation and the transport commenced with such e-way bill accompanying the goods.
6. We, hence, reject both the contentions of the appellant and affirm the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The directions in the judgment of the learned Single Judge would be carried out by the Department. The appeal would stand dismissed, in limine.