KA HC: GST Law Doesn’t Require Transporters to Adhere to a Specific Route Map to Reach Destination Points

The High Court of Karnataka stated that the Goods and Services Tax Act does not require goods transporters to strictly follow the route map provided to them for delivering goods. The court set aside the penalty imposed by the State Commercial Tax authorities on a transporter for a truck driver’s route map violation.

No critical rule

The court noted that the law requires the submission of consignment documents and specific details about the consignor, consignee, goods, route maps, and destinations. While it’s mandatory to provide details of the route map, there’s no obligation to strictly adhere to that route. The law addresses the first requirement, but it doesn’t provide a clear rule for the latter.

Read Also: Center Govt Approves 18% GST on Transport Services of Goods

A Division Bench, Justice Krishna S. Dixit, and Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar made these observations at the time of keeping the judgment passed by a single judge, who had set aside the December 2021 order of the Department of Commercial Taxes in charging Rs 21.42 lakh as penalty on M/s Transways India Transport, Bengaluru. An appeal filed by the department against the single judge’s verdict has been dismissed by the Bench. 

The Goods and Services Tax Act does not mandate that transporters of goods have to compulsorily adhere to the route map furnished to them to reach destinations for delivery of goods, said the High Court of Karnataka, while setting aside exemplary penalty imposed by the State Commercial Tax authorities on a transporter for violation of route map by the truck driver.

No binding rule

“What is required by law is the furnishing of consignment documents and specified particulars of the consignor, consignee, goods, route maps, and destinations. The requirement of furnishing particulars of route map etc. is one thing, compulsive adherence to the route is another. There is the law with regard to the former, it is true; but the latter is non-liquet i.e., an area where there is no binding rule,” the court observed.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar made these observations while upholding the judgment passed by a single judge, who had set aside the December 2021 order of the Department of Commercial Taxes in imposing ₹21.42 lakh as a penalty on M/s Transways India Transport, Bengaluru.  The Bench dismissed an appeal filed by the department against the single judge’s verdict.

Read Also: Service Tax Payable on Buses Used for Carrying Passengers Can’t Be Considered Goods Transport

The truck was carrying steel coils and plates from Mumbai to be delivered at separate destinations in Kalasipalya, S.P. Road, and Peenya Industrial Area in Bengaluru. However, on arriving at Hebbal junction, instead of taking a right turn, the driver wrongly took a left turn and moved towards the Bommasandra Industrial area. By the department’s checking squad near Bommasandra, the truck was intercepted.

Departments contention

Later, even though the department found all the documents in order, it considered the change of route by the driver as transportation of goods without holding the documents beyond the place of destination and also diversion of the goods to a place different from the destination point, under the provisions of the GST Act, and charged a penalty.

As per the department, it was neither persuaded by the explanation furnished via the driver nor the affidavit filed via the purchases to whom the consignment needs to be delivered. 

As per the Bench, When the law doesn’t require providing reasons for switching directions or routes, the truth or falsity of the reason offered by the driver for choosing another route becomes insignificant. However, this doesn’t mean a driver can lie without consequences, clarified the Bench.