No Law Prohibits Alteration Of Travel Route In Transporting Goods: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that no law, rule or ruling mandates conveyance of goods from one point to its destination following a particular route only or prohibits alteration of travel route qua the one impressed in the consignment documents.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar dismissed the appeal filed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and said “What is required by law is the furnishing of consignment documents and specified particulars of consignor, consignee, goods, route maps & destinations. Requirement of furnishing particulars of route map, etc., is one thing, compulsive adherence to the impressed route is another. There is law with regard to the former, is true; but latter is non liquet i.e., an area where there is no binding rule.”
The authority had approached the court challenging the order passed by the Single judge bench which allowed the petition filed by M/sTransways India Transport and the obligation to pay tax & penalty had been quashed coupled with a direction to release the vehicle in question.
The authority in appeal argued that the conveyance was intersected by the CTO at Bommasandra Industrial Area which is more than 20 kms away from the outer limits of Bengaluru City. Since, the goods moved in a different direction altogether than what was impressed to the department, which was not authorised by the transit documents. The authorities had rightly treated the case as one of 'transportation of goods without documents.
The authorities had passed an order u/s 129(3) of the GST Act, confirming the tax liability of Rs.3,25,423, coupled with a penalty of Rs.21,41,239 and directed the respondent to make the payment immediately.
Referring to Article 19(1)(g) read with Article 301 of the Constitution of India, the court said “It is open to a trader to take goods to the destination point in whichever route he opts, unless the law otherwise requires, destination point being intact. Such a right needs to be recognized as of necessity to trade or business.”
Noting that the government advocate could not locate any rule or ruling that regulates the movement of conveyor of goods while choosing his route, in the State. The bench held “As the law now stands in Karnataka, a merchant or his convoy is free to choose the route for the movement of goods from the point of origin to the point of destination and that he has specified a particular route in the consignment documents, would not come in the way of that route being altered, although destination cannot be.”
Further it held “In the absence of law, he cannot be faltered if he chooses a circuitous route in preference to linear one in variance with the impression given to the authorities in the said documents as long as travel time and destination point remain intact. If that be so, the impugned orders of authorities that were structured on a contra premise could not stand the test of law. The judgement of the learned Single Judge therefore is inexplicable, despite the said reason not animating it.”
Dismissing the appeal the court said “The orders of liability & penalty of the authorities that are quashed by the learned Single Judge cannot be revived by setting aside his Judgement.”
Appearance: AGA Aditya Vikram Bhat for Appellants.
Advocate K J Kamath for Respondent
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 296
Case Title: The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & ANR AND M/s Transways India Transport. Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 854 OF 2022