Transporter can deliver goods as per his operational convenience. Detention order set aside by High Court

High Court held that there is no prohibition in law to load the consignments to two different destinations intended for two different parties in two different States on a single conveyance

Nor there is any rule that consignments intended for a party at a shorter distance should be offloaded first.

In our opinion, the officer had acted mechanically without application of mind to the operational convenience of the transporter.

- High Court 

Facts

The petitioner purchased steel pipes from M/s. Santosh Steel, Dadra and Nagar Haveli.

The petitioner hired M/s. Anmol Parcel Services for transporting the material from Dadra and Nagar Haveli to Secunderabad.

The said transporter also booked the material of M/s. Simi Steels, Adoni from the same vendor (M/s. Santosh Steels, Dadra and Nagar Haveli) to it's business premises at Adoni.

For carrying the material to these two destinations, one at Secunderabad and the other at Adoni, two waybills were generated, one from Dadra and Nagar Haveli to Secunderabad for a travel of 867 kms. and the other from Dadra and Nagar Haveli to Adoni which is at a distance of 940 kms.

The transporter first loaded the material of the petitioner, and then loaded the material of M/s. Simi Steels as the quantity of the petitioner amounting to 14320.90 kgs. was more and much heavier than the material of M/s. Simi Steels which was 2018.15 kgs.; and so the latter was loaded on top of the goods vehicle. The transporter has done so for his operational convenience and it had intended to unload the material on the top of the goods vehicle at Adoni first. 

But while the vehicle was on its way to Adoni, it was intercepted at Annasagar, Mahabubnagar District by the 1st respondent and detained by him on the ground that the 'documents of the vehicle were defective' and that 'the transaction in respect of the e-waybill was concluded at Hyderabad, but they were further transported to Adoni without invoice and e- waybill' and proposed ₹ 3,68,555/- as GST and ₹ 3,68,555/- as penalty, and issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 31.12.2020.

The petitioner submitted a reply stating that the goods were destined to Hyderabad and Adoni from Dadra and Nagar Haveli, and while loading the goods in the goods vehicle, the goods of the petitioner were loaded first and the goods of M/s. Simi Steels were loaded at the top, for operational convenience by the transporter; and that as the goods of M/s. Simi Steels were loaded on top, they would have to first deliver them at Adoni, and then only the balance material would be unloaded at Hyderabad. It was pointed out that therefore the goods vehicle passed through Patancheru ring road through Jadcherla on its way to Adoni and in the meanwhile it was intercepted and detained at Annasagar.

Revenue

Revenue contended that to go to Adoni, Andhra Pradesh, the conveyance has to first pass Hyderabad, Telangana and the goods destined to the petitioner in Hyderabad should be delivered to the petitioner first, and then only the goods vehicle/conveyance should have proceeded to Adoni subsequently for delivery; but the vehicle was carrying the goods of both the Hyderabad recipient (being the petitioner) and Adoni recipient (being M/s. Simi Steels) at the time of interception.

According to revenue, as per logic since Hyderabad comes first and not Adoni, when the vehicle comes from Dadra and Nagar Haveli, the consignment of 14.30 tonnes would be offloaded at Hyderabad, and then 2.01 tonnes consignment should proceed towards Adoni; and the vehicle was therefore rightly detained by him when it was more than 100 kms from Hyderabad and carrying the full load of 16.31 tonnes.

18. According to him, the load meant to the petitioner at Hyderabad was not offloaded and thereby it looked as if the said goods were also meant for another destination, that this is malpractice and violation of e- waybill rules and so the vehicle was detained rightly. The consideration by the Court

High Court

We do not appreciate the stand taken by the 1st respondent for the reason that the quantity consigned to the petitioner at Hyderabad was admittedly 14.30 tonnes and the quantity which was consigned to M/s. Simi Steels, Adoni was only 2.01 tonnes. Naturally for operational convenience the transporter would load the lesser quantity last and the larger quantity first, i.e. the larger quantity would then be at the bottom of the goods vehicle and the smaller quantity would be on top of it; and it would be convenient for the transporter to offload the lesser quantity first and then the larger quantity next.

If the contention of the 1st respondent is to be accepted, for delivery of 14.30 tonnes at Hyderabad to the petitioner first, the transporter would have to offload even the 2.01 tonnes which is on top of the consignment of 14.30 tonnes in the goods vehicle, and then reload it in Hyderabad, which would be a cumbersome process.

This fundamental issue the 1st respondent shockingly did not understand and simply went by the point that Hyderabad comes first and Adoni comes later ignoring the operational convenience of the transporter.

It is also not the case of the 1st respondent that there was any discrepancy in the total quantity of the load, as admittedly the total load on the vehicle corresponded to the quantity mentioned in the e-waybills and invoices. Therefore, no such conclusion could even be prima facie drawn by the 1st respondent that the load of 14.30 tonnes which were meant to the petitioner at Hyderabad would be offloaded at another destination.

We do not accept the plea of the 1st respondent that even if the goods meant to be delivered at Adoni were loaded on top of the conveyance, the said goods should have been unloaded and then reloaded after unloading the goods intended for the petitioner at Hyderabad. Such view, in our opinion, is utterly perverse and cannot be accepted.

It is also not the case of the 1st respondent that there is any prohibition for a consignor to load the consignments to two different destinations intended for two different parties in two different States on a single conveyance; and there is any rule that consignments intended for a party at a shorter distance should be offloaded first.

In our considered opinion, the 1st respondent had acted mechanically without application of mind to the operational convenience of the transporter.

The petitioner cannot be said to have any intention to evade tax if any mistake is, for the sake of argument without conceding it, has been committed by the transporter.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed.

taxreply.com © 2024. All Rights Reserved