In a recent judgment, the Calcutta High Court dismissed a review petition filed by the State GST authorities in connection with the non-updation of Part B of an e-waybill. Thus, the request of imposing penalty was rejected and directed to release the bank guarantee.
Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury, Citing the precedents raised, including Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr., reiterated that reviews are only granted in cases of substantial and compelling circumstances, which, in this instance, were absent.
Get a Copy of GST Inspection, Search & Seizure, Click here
The review petition revolved around a challenge to the original judgment and order dated 29th November, 2023. Mr. Siddique, the department’s counsel contended that the court had erroneously based its decision on the assumption that all four Part-B e-waybills had been updated within two minutes of interception of the vehicle.
The review sought to rectify this perceived error, as only three of the four e-waybills had been updated, while the fourth remained unprocessed.
Mr. Siddique cited the precedent set in S. Nagaraj & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Anr., asserting that a review is justified when the judgment is based on a factual error leading to a miscarriage of justice. He cited that the court’s obligation to review is rooted in the desire to avoid such injustice.
Get a Copy of GST Inspection, Search & Seizure, Click here
On behalf of the petitioners, Ms. Mukherjee countered that the court was fully aware of the non-updation of the fourth e-waybill and that this fact had been brought to the notice of the authorities via a contemporaneous letter dated 25th July 2023. She highlighted that this information was explicitly detailed in paragraph 8 of the writ petition, and that there had been no suppression of facts.
Furthermore, she argued that the state respondents were effectively challenging the original judgment through the guise of a review, which is not permissible under the law, especially when the respondents had the option to appeal but chose not to exercise it.
The court, reviewing the arguments, found that the original judgment had indeed considered the non-updation issue. The court had noted the genuine difficulty in the e-waybill’s non-updation and had already moderated the penalty from ₹8,71,074 to ₹50,000.
Get a Copy of GST Inspection, Search & Seizure, Click here
The court held that no grounds for interference were established, and the review petition was dismissed. The connected applicationwas similarly dismissed. Furthermore, the court ordered the immediate release of the bank guarantee dated 5th August, 2023, held by the State respondents, directing that it be returned to the petitioners.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
