The Karnataka High Court in the case of M/S. KOLVEKAR LOGISTICS VERSUS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS) , DHARWAD, THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (ENFORCEMENT 2) TUMKUR, THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU vide WRIT PETITION NO. 100347/2022(T-RES) dated 22.04.2024, has held transporters are not required to carry the original tax invoice under the CGST and SGST Acts. A duplicate copy suffices. The judgment relied on a previous decision reinforcing the same interpretation of the law. The petitioner’s penalties were quashed and a refund was ordered, correcting the misapplication of GST regulations by the respondents.
This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the specific requirements of GST laws and clarifies that carrying a duplicate invoice during transport is legally sufficient.
Facts of the Case:- A partnership firm registered under Goods and Services Tax (GST) law, engaged in the business of transporting and selling bitumen. The petitioner was penalized for not carrying the original tax invoice during transportation of goods. It was argued that the law does not mandate the transporter to carry the original tax invoice; instead, a duplicate copy suffices.
Referenced Rule 48 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, which stipulates the preparation of invoices in triplicate: original for the recipient, duplicate for the transporter, and triplicate for the supplier. Further, contended that the enforcement action was based on a misinterpretation of the law, leading to unjust penalty and double taxation.
The respondent submitted that the absence of the original tax invoice warranted the tax and penalty imposition, as confirmed by the orders in question.
Held that:- The Court examined Rule 138-A of the State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) Act and Section 68 of the CGST Act, finding no requirement for carrying the original tax invoice. The Court supported the petitioner's argument that the duplicate invoice is sufficient for transport as per Rule 48 of the CGST Act.
Relied upon previous case in M/s Divya Jyothi Petrochemicals Co., which reinforced the position that carrying a duplicate copy of the invoice is compliant with the law.
The Court concluded that the respondents' imposition of tax and penalty based on the lack of an original invoice was incorrect. Ordered that the writ petition be allowed, quashing the impugned orders. Directed the respondents to refund the tax and penalty paid by the petitioner within three months.
To read the complete judgment 2024 Taxo.online 1152
