E-way Bill In Case Of Storing Of Goods In Godown Of Transporter

Storing of Good in Transporter Warehouse

How to make E-way Bill In Case Of Storing Of Goods in Transporter Godown.

The problem of Storing Of Goods In Transporter Godown:

  1. Textile traders use transporters’ godown for storage of their goods due to their weak financial conditions.
  2. The transporters providing such warehousing facility will have to get themselves registered under GST.
  3. The transporters providing such warehousing facility will have to get themselves registered under GST and maintain detailed records in cases where the transporter takes delivery of the goods and temporarily stores them in his warehouse for further transportation of the goods till the consignee/recipient taxpayer’s premises.
  4. The transport industry is facing difficulties due to the same and a request has been made to treat these godowns as transit godowns.

Clarification on Storing Of Goods In Transporter Godown:

  1. In case the consignee/ recipient taxpayer stores his goods in the godown of the transporter, then the transporter’s godown has to be declared as an additional place of business by the consignee/ recipient taxpayer.
  2. Mere declaration by the recipient taxpayer to this effect with the concurrence of the transporter in the said declaration will sufficient.
  3. In such case, the transportation under the e-way bill shall be deemed to be concluded once the goods have reached the transporter’s godown
  4. whenever the goods move from the transporter’s godown (i.e, recipient taxpayer’s additional place of business) to the recipient taxpayer’s any other place of business, a valid e-way bill shall be required, as per the extant State-specific e-way bill rules.

Click here for copy of circular

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and VJM & Associates LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp
Related Post
MCA imposed Penalty for failure to issue and transfer shares in Demat form
Others
CA. Kavit Vijay

MCA imposed Penalty for failure to issue and transfer shares in Demat form

As per Section 29(1A) of Companies Act read with Rule 9A of The Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Rules, 2014, every unlisted public company shall ensure that before issuance of any securities entire holding of securities of its promoters, directors, key managerial personnel has been dematerialised in accordance with provisions of the Depositories Act 1996. Further,  every shareholder of an unlisted public company is required to dematerialise its securities before transfer, if such transfer is made on or after 2nd October, 2018.

Read More »
Proceedings can’t be initiated under Section 74 when tax liability is already discharged along with interest
Judgements
CA. Sachin Jindal

Proceedings can’t be initiated under Section 74 when tax liability is already discharged along with interest

The petitioner is engaged in the business of generation of electricity through solar plants. The GST returns filed by the petitioner for the period of July, 2017 to March, 2019 were subject to audit. The petitioner was informed about tax liability during audit proceedings on account of wrong availment of ITC and ITC availed with respect to exempted supply. Upon receipt of initial audit observation, the petitioner discharged the entire tax liability alongwith interest. The final audit report was issued much after payment of GST liability. Post audit, the respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioner under Section 74 of CGST Act and confirmed the demand through DRC-07. The petitioner contended that it falls under purview of Section 73(1) and 73(5) of CGST Act and therefore, SCN under section 74 is not sustainable. Whereas, the respondent contended that this is the case of fraud and willful misstatement.

Read More »

V J M & Associates LLP

Contact Us

X