This case involves a dispute between the government and a transporter who was penalized for taking a route different from the one mentioned in the consignment documents. The goods were being transported from Maharashtra to various locations in Bengaluru, but the vehicle was intercepted at Bommasandra, an area significantly off the expected route.

Arguments:

• The government argued that the change in route constituted "transportation of goods without documents" and attracted tax and penalty under the GST Act. They cited the importance of following the route mentioned in the documents.
• The transporter contested the penalty, claiming the freedom of movement is a fundamental right under the Constitution (Articles 19(1)(d) and 301) and can only be restricted by law. They argued that no such law exists that mandates following a specific route.

Court's Decision:

• The court agreed with the transporter. It acknowledged the importance of free movement for trade and commerce and found no law restricting the choice of route as long as the destination remains the same.
• The court acknowledged the requirement to provide consignment documents with details like route maps but distinguished it from mandatory adherence to that specific route.
• The court cited a similar case from the Gujarat High Court where a transporter was penalized for taking a different route, and that penalty was also quashed.

Outcome:

• The court dismissed the government's appeal and upheld the lower court's decision that quashed the tax and penalty imposed on the transporter.

Gst Case law The Joint Commissioner Versus M/S. Transways India Transport

Citation-2024 TAXONATION 1404 (KARNATAKA)

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL CASE LAW 

OR 

SUBSCRIBE GST E-LIBRARY (INDIA'S HIGHEST GST CASE LAW DATA)

FOR MORE UPDATE ON GST/ IT JOIN OUR FREE WHATSAPP GROUP BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK https://chat.whatsapp.com/C8VB6F6VHme3A061UDQKhj