No Tax Amount in E-Way Bill? No Problem — Court Quashes Wrongful Goods Detention

Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here

Case Name

M.S. Steel and Pipes v. Assistant State Tax Officer & Commissioner of State GST

Court Name: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 16356 of 2020

Decided on: 12th August 2020

Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar

Key Takeaways

1. E-way bills don’t need to show tax amounts separately. The prescribed format — FORM GST EWB-01 — simply doesn’t have a field for tax amounts, so not mentioning it is NOT a violation.

2. Detention under Section 129 requires actual contravention. Authorities can only detain goods if there’s a genuine violation of the GST Act or Rules — not just because a document looks incomplete.

3. Read documents together, not in isolation. When the tax invoice (which DID show the tax amount) and the e-way bill are read together, it’s clear the tax was paid. That’s sufficient.

4. Section 33 applies to tax invoices, not e-way bills. The government’s attempt to stretch Section 33’s requirements to cover e-way bills was rejected by the court.

5. Taxpayer-friendly ruling: This judgment protects businesses from overzealous enforcement actions that go beyond what the law actually requires.

Issue

The Central Legal Question:

Can goods being transported under a valid tax invoice and a properly formatted e-way bill (FORM GST EWB-01) be detained under Section 129 of the GST Act, merely because the e-way bill does not separately mention the tax amount?

The Court’s Answer: NO.

Facts

• Who is the petitioner? M.S. Steel and Pipes, a business located at Market Road, Chekkalamukku, Sreekaryam, Thiruvananthapuram, represented by its partner M.S. Faisal.

• What happened? The petitioner was transporting a consignment of goods. During transit, the Assistant State Tax Officer, State GST Department, Intelligence Squad No. VI, Nedumangad, Thiruvananthapuram intercepted and detained the goods.

• Why were the goods detained? The tax officer noticed that while the goods were accompanied by:
• A tax invoice (which clearly showed the goods details AND the tax paid), and
• An e-way bill in FORM GST EWB-01
• …the e-way bill did not separately mention the tax amount. The officer treated this as a discrepancy and issued detention notices (Ext. P4 series).

• What documents were involved?
• Exhibit P1: Registration Certificate of the petitioner
• Exhibit P2: Invoice No. A818 issued by the petitioner
• Exhibit P3: E-Way Bill No. 5211 9408 0871
• Exhibit P4: Form GST MOV-02 (Order for Physical Verification)
• Exhibit P4A: Form GST MOV-04 (Order for Physical Verification)
• Exhibit P4B: Form GST MOV-06 (Order for Detention)
• Exhibit P4C: Form GST MOV-07 (Notice demanding Tax/Penalty)

• What did the petitioner do? They approached the High Court of Kerala challenging the detention notices.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments (M.S. Steel and Pipes):

1. No legal requirement to mention tax in e-way bill: There is absolutely no requirement under the GST Act or Rules to separately mention the tax amount in FORM GST EWB-01.

2. Both documents were valid and present: The transportation was covered by BOTH a valid tax invoice AND an e-way bill in the prescribed format. When read together, it was crystal clear that tax had been paid.

3. No contravention = No detention: Since no provision of the Act or Rules was violated, the detention under Section 129 of the GST Act was completely unjustified.

Government’s Arguments (State GST Department):

1. Section 33 obligation: Under Section 33 of the GST Act, every person making a taxable supply must prominently indicate the tax amount in all documents relating to assessment, tax invoice and other like documents. The government argued the e-way bill falls within this category.

2. E-way bill = Assessment document: The government pleader argued that an e-way bill is akin to a tax invoice or assessment document, and therefore must also carry the tax amount details.

3. Transportation was in contravention: Since the e-way bill didn’t comply with Section 33, the transportation itself was in contravention of the Act and Rules, justifying detention under Section 129.

Key Legal Provisions Referenced

Note: This judgment does not cite prior case law precedents, but relies on statutory provisions. Here are the exact provisions discussed:

Section 129 of the GST Act: Deals with the power to detain goods in transit when transportation is in contravention of the Act and Rules

Section 33 of the GST Act: Requires every person making a taxable supply to prominently indicate the tax amount in all documents relating to assessment, tax invoice and other like documents

Rule 138(A) of GST Rules: Specifies the documents a person transporting goods is obliged to carry: (i) the invoice or bill of supply or delivery challan, and (ii) the copy of e-way bill in physical form or e-way bill number in electronic form

FORM GST EWB-01: The prescribed format for e-way bills — importantly, this form has no field for entering the tax amount payable

How the Court Applied These Provisions:

• Rule 138(A) tells us what documents are needed during transportation — a tax invoice AND an e-way bill in FORM GST EWB-01.Both were present.

• FORM GST EWB-01 — the government’s own prescribed format — has no field for tax amounts. So how can you penalize someone for not filling in something the form doesn’t even ask for?

• Section 33 may require tax amounts to be shown in invoices and assessment documents, but the e-way bill in its prescribed format is not designed to carry that information.

• Section 129 detention power can only be triggered by actual contravention — and since there was none here, the detention was illegal.

Judgment

The Petitioner (M.S. Steel and Pipes) won completely

What Did the Court Decide?

1. Rejected the Government’s argument that the e-way bill needed to separately show the tax amount.

2. Held that since FORM GST EWB-01 (the prescribed e-way bill format) does not contain a field for tax amounts, not mentioning the tax amount cannot be treated as a contravention of the rules.

3. Held that the transportation was fully covered by valid documents — a proper tax invoice showing tax paid, and a proper e-way bill in the prescribed format.

4. Concluded that since there was no contravention of any provision of the Act or Rules, the detention under Section 129 was not justified.

Orders Made by the Court:

• Quashed the Ext. P4 series of detention notices
• Directed the respondents to release the goods forthwith upon the petitioner furnishing a copy of the judgment
• Directed the Government Pleader to communicate the gist of the judgment to the respondents for expeditious clearance of the goods and the vehicle

FAQs

Q1: Why did the GST officer detain the goods in the first place?

The officer noticed that the e-way bill didn’t separately mention the tax amount and treated this as a discrepancy, concluding there was no “valid” e-way bill. However, the court found this reasoning to be legally incorrect.

Q2: Is it mandatory to mention the tax amount in an e-way bill?

No! The court clearly held that FORM GST EWB-01 — the prescribed e-way bill format — does not have a field for tax amounts. So there is no legal requirement to mention it there.

Q3: What documents must a transporter carry under GST Rules?

As per Rule 138(A) of GST Rules, a transporter must carry:

1. The invoice, bill of supply, or delivery challan, AND
2. A copy of the e-way bill in physical form OR the e-way bill number in electronic form.

Q4: Can authorities detain goods just because a document seems incomplete?

No. Under Section 129 of the GST Act, detention is only justified when there is an actual contravention of the Act or Rules. Mere appearance of incompleteness in a document — especially when the prescribed format itself doesn’t require that information — is not sufficient grounds for detention.

Q5: What is the significance of this judgment for businesses?

This is a very important ruling for businesses transporting goods under GST. It establishes that tax authorities cannot detain goods based on a hyper-technical reading of documents, especially when the transporter has complied with all prescribed requirements. It protects businesses from arbitrary detention of goods and vehicles.

Q6: What happened to the goods after the judgment?

The court ordered their immediate release. The petitioner just needed to show a copy of the judgment to the authorities, and the Government Pleader was directed to communicate the order quickly to ensure the goods and vehicle were cleared without delay.

Q7: Did the court cite any previous case law?

Based on the judgment as available, the court did not cite any prior case law precedents. The decision was based purely on a reading and interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions — Section 33, Section 129 of the GST Act, Rule 138(A) of the GST Rules, and FORM GST EWB-01.

1. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P4 series of

notices of detention, whereby a consignment of goods transported at the instance of the petitioner was detained by the respondent on the allegation that there was a discrepancy in the e-way bill that accompanied the transportation of the goods. On a perusal of Ext.P4 series of notice, I find that the reason for detention was that, while the consignment was supported by an invoice which contained the details of the goods transported as also the tax paid in respect of the goods, there was no mention of the tax amounts separately in the e-way bill that accompanied the goods. The respondents therefore detained the goods on the ground that there was

no valid e-way bill, supporting the transportation in question.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that there is no

requirement under the Act and Rules for mentioning the tax amount separately in the e-way bill in FORM GST EWB-01 that the petitioner was obliged to use to cover the transportation in question. It is further pointed that there is no dispute that the transportation was covered both by a tax invoice, as also an e-way bill in FORM GST EWB-01, and when both the documents are perused together, it is amply clear that the transportation was covered by documents that clearly indicated the fact of payment of tax on the goods that were being transported. It is contended therefore that there was no justification for the detention under Section 129 of the Act.

3. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned Government Pleader that

as per Section 33 of the GST Act, there is an obligation on every person, who makes a supply for consideration and who is liable to pay tax for such supply, to prominently indicate in all documents relating to assessment, tax invoice and other like documents, the amount of tax which shall form part of the price at which such supply is made. She reads the said provision in juxtaposition with Section 129 of the Act which deals with the power to detain goods in transit. Referring to the provisions of Section 129, it is contended that the goods in question were being transported under cover of documents that had been raised in contravention of the provisions of Section 33. It is argued that, the e-way bill being a document akin to

a tax invoice, in relation to an assessment to tax, and not having carried the details regarding the tax amount, the transportation itself had to be viewed as in contravention of the Act and Rules for the purposes of Section 129.

4. On a consideration of the rival submissions, I am of the view that the

submissions of the learned Government Pleader cannot be accepted. The power of detention under Section 129 is to be exercised only in cases where a

transportation of goods is seen to be in contravention of the provisions of the Act and Rules and not simply because a document relevant for assessment does not contain details of tax payment. As per the statutory provisions applicable to the instant case, a person transporting goods is obliged to carry only the documents enumerated in Rule 138(A) of GST Rules, during the course of transportation. The said documents are (i) the invoice or bill of supply or delivery challan, as the case may be and (ii) the copy of e-way bill in physical form or e-way bill Number in electronic form etc. A reading of the said Rule clearly indicates that the e-way bill has to be in FORM GST EWB-01, and in that format, there is no field wherein the transporter is required to indicate the tax amount payable in respect of the goods

transported. If the statutorily prescribed form does not contain a field for entering the details of the tax payable in the e-way bill, then the non-mentioning of the tax amount cannot be seen as an act in contravention of the rules. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the transpiration was covered by a valid tax invoice, which clearly showed the tax collected in respect of the goods and an e-way bill in the prescribed format in FORM GST EWB-01. Since there was no contravention by the petitioner of any provision of the Act or Rule for the purposes of Section 129, the detention in the instant case cannot be said to be justified.

In the result, I allow the writ petition by quashing Ext.P4 series of detention notices and directing the respondents to release the goods forthwith to the petitioner on the petitioner furnishing a copy of this judgment before the respondents. The learned Government Pleader shall communicate a gist of the directions in this judgment to the respondents for enabling an expeditious clearance of the goods and the vehicle.

Sd/-

A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE