The Calcutta High Court quashed the penalty under the West Bengal Goods and Service Tax ( WBGST) Act,2017. The GST e-way bill expired due to an accident. The vehicle met the accident and there was a settlement made between the owner of the motorcycle and the owner of the truck carrying the goods, this also added to the delay in the process.
Mr Rituraj Chakraborty appeared for the Appellant and Mr T.M. Siddique, Mr Tanoy Chakraborty, and Mr Saptak Sanyal appeared for the State.
The writ petitioner, M/S Saraf Trexim Limited the order passed by the learned Single Bench dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order passed by the authorities imposing penalty under the provisions of the West Bengal Goods and Service Tax ( WBGST ) Act,2017 on the ground that the e-way bill generated by the appellant for transporting the articles for export to Bangladesh had expired and, therefore, on the date and time when the vehicle was intercepted, the vehicle did not have a valid e-way bill. Therefore, penalty in terms of Section 129 of the Act has been imposed.
The goods in question were transported by the appellant in the vehicle bearing Registration No.WB-27-2590 accompanied by an e-way bill generated on 11.06.2022. The e-way bill was valid up to midnight on 13.06.2022.
On 14.06.2022 the vehicle was intercepted at about 5.30 p.m. The authorities found that the e-way bill had expired at 12 midnight on 13.06.2022 and a fresh e-way bill has not been generated. Consequently, it was held that the goods were transported without a valid e-way bill.
Though the appellant had sought to explain the lapse on the ground that the vehicle met the accident and there was a settlement made between the owner of the motorcycle and the owner of the truck carrying the goods, this also had added to the delay in the process and in any event on 15.06.2022 the second e-way bill was generated and at the time when the vehicle was intercepted, hardly 24 hours had expired from the time at which the first e-way bill had expired.
In similar matters court has taken a view that unless and until it is established by the department that the transporter of the goods or the owner of the goods had an intention to contravene the provisions of the Act, the question of imposing penalty under Section 129 of the Act that too 200% would not be justified. Each case has to be decided on the peculiar facts and circumstances and the court can definitely take into consideration the bonafide of the transaction and in the instant case the delay have been less than 24 hours.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice T S Sivagnanam and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya held that no penalty can be imposed on the appellant and quashed the order. The Court further held that “since the appellant had paid the penalty during the pendency of the proceedings, the appellant is entitled to apply for a refund of the amount of the penalty collected which shall be considered and a refund be effected as expeditiously as possible preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of the server copy of the order.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
