Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

UDATE on Issues regarding E-way Bill

UDATE on Issues regarding E-way Bill
This update intends to discuss about the issues arising in case of generation of E-way bill in case of Job Work: -
1.      In case of inter-state movement of goods/capital goods for job work, the value cap of Rs. 50,000/- is not applicable. This is due to third proviso to Section 138(1) of the CGST Act which reads as follows:-
 
Provided also that where goods are sent by a principal located in one State or Union territory to a job worker located in any other State or Union territory, the e-way bill shall be generated either by the principal or the job worker, if registered, irrespective of the value of the consignment:”
 
The same wording is used in GST Rules of Rajasthan Government. Thus, value limit is not applicable in case of movement of goods for job work from one state to another. But the same is not applicable in case of movement of goods within state. Hence, the limit of Rs. 50,000/- is applicable for movement of goods on job work basis within state of Rajasthan.
 
2.      Further, there is no relaxation of distance in Rajasthan as is being done in Gujarat where e-way bill is applicable on movement of goods from one city to another city. Hence, e-way bill is to be generated in state of Rajasthan for every movement of goods in a vehicle. Hence, the job work movement of goods is also not exempted and we have to generate e-way bill of each and every movement of goods. Even the inputs/capital goods moving for repair and maintenance will also require e-way bill if the value of goods exceeds Rs. 50,000/-.  
Such type of repair works are quite frequently takes place in many industries. For example, Stainless steel patta patti industry sends machinery parts such as backup roll, work roll, coupling etc to the job worker on day-to-day basis for the process of grinding. Hence, e-way bill is to be generated for each such movement as the value of such parts is more than Rs. 50,000/-. 

3.      Moreover, e-way bill can be generated by principal or job worker in case of return back of goods by job worker. This has been provided in Rule 138 cited supra. Event the circular number 38/12/2018 dated 26.03.2018 also allows the movement of goods either by principal or job worker. This can be done either by endorsement of job work challan or by issuance of new challan by job worker. However, the e-way portal shows that option of “job work return” in inward transaction type and as soon as the same is entered then the address of registrant comes in “Bill to” column.   

Hence, it implies that the principal has also to generate e-way bill in case of return of job work. Normally, in industry the goods move from one job worker to another job worker. This is most common in textile industry. Goods move to one job worker for bleaching and then it send to another job worker for dyeing and thereafter to another job worker for printing and so on for finishing, washing, felt and packing. In each case, the principal has to generate e-way bill for each onward movement. Thus, it will make the procedure very cumbersome. The difficulty is immense if the principal is situated in another city.

Although the law as well as circular provides for the movement of goods by job worker but the e-way portal provides for job work return by principal only. The other option to job worker in case of return of job work goods generate the challan in other column. This anomaly in e-way portal is creating problems. Hence, in case of job work return, the portal should allow to enter name either in “Bill to” or “Bill from”. It will smoothen the process of e-way bill.
 
4.       Raw materials/Goods/ Machinery parts are sent for processing from one job worker to another job worker in various consignments. The material sent for processing is the intermediate material and have consignment value of more than Rs. 50,000/-. Since there is frequent movement of goods and that too in huge quantities, it is difficult to generate e-way bill for every movement of goods.

Besides, each e-way bill is required to be an adjunct to tax invoice or delivery challan and since the goods sent on job work involves several processes to be undertaken by different job workers, it is extremely complex to create new delivery challan with every movement of goods. In addition, if new delivery challans are issued every time, it will be intricate to keep their track record for the purpose of filing ITC-04. Hence, the requirement of issuance of e-way bill of labour intensive industry like textile and handicraft industry should be dispensed with.

5.      There was also practical difficulty pointed out by industry that movement of cars for repair work will also require e-way bill. Similarly, computer or mobile phone of more than Rs. 50,000/- for repairing will also require e-way bill. Even one scholar asked whether taking out car or mobile phone for official work will also require e-way bill. This seems to be very absurd. But author of this update does not have any answer to the same.

The content of this GST update is for educational purpose only and not intended for solicitation.
You can reach us at www.capradeepjain.com, at our facebook page on https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/as well as follow us on twitter at https://www.twitter.com/@capradeepjain21
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com