Time Gap between expiry of E-way Bill and Interception of Vehicle in question Proved: Calcutta HC orders Refund of Penalty [Read Order]

https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Time-Gap-expiry-E-way-Bill-Interception-Vehicle-question-Proved-Calcutta-HC-Refund-Penalty-taxscan.jpg

The Calcutta High Court ordered for refund of penalty as the time between expiry of the e-way bill and the interception of the vehicle in question was proved.

By the writ petition, the petitioner, M/s. Ishaan Plastics Pvt. Ltd. & Anr, has challenged the impugned order of the appellate authority under West Bengal Goods and Service Tax (WBGST) Act confirming the order of the adjudicating authority imposing the penalty for transporting the vehicle in question after expiry of the e-way bill which was expired on 27.12.2022 at 11.59 p.m. and the vehicle in question was intercepted at 8.37 a.m. on 28.12.2022 that there is a time gap between the expiry of the bill and interception of the vehicle in question is about 9 hrs., which is less than a day and writ petitioner submits that there was no intention of any evasion of tax on the part of the petitioner.

The advocate who appeared for the petitioner in support of his contention relies on an order of this Court dated 1st March, 2022 in WPA No. 11085 of 2021 in the case of Ashok Kumar Sureka v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Durgapur Range and also a Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court dated 12th May, 2022 in MAT No. 470 of 2022.

The advocate who appeared for the respondents could not make out any case against the petitioner that there was any deliberate or wilful intention of the petitioner to avoid and evade the tax.

A Single Bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin observed that “In view of the facts and circumstances of the case which appears from record and considering the aforesaid two orders of this Court, this writ petition being WPA 22612 of 2023 is disposed of by setting aside the aforesaid impugned order of the appellate authority and adjudicating authority and as a consequence, petitioner will be entitled to get the refund of the penalty in question subject to compliance of legal formalities.”

Counsels Ankit Kanodia, Megha Agarwal, Jitesh Sah appeared for the petitioners and counsels A. Ray, T. M. Siddiqui, T. Chakraborty appeared for the state.

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

taxscan-loader