Pawan Carrying Corporation Vs State of West Bengal & ors. (Calcutta High Court)
Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Pawan Carrying Corporation against the State of West Bengal and others, ruling that a technical glitch in an e-way bill, which resulted in an incorrect vehicle number, does not warrant a writ petition when an alternative remedy exists. The petitioner, a transporter, had challenged a penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017.
The case centered on the transportation of goods from Kanpur to Ukilpara, West Bengal. The petitioner had initially generated an e-way bill on February 14, 2025, for a vehicle bearing registration number UP 78 JT 5955. During the journey, the vehicle reportedly developed a snag in Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh, on February 19, 2025, rendering it inoperable.
To continue the transportation, the petitioner arranged for the goods to be transshipped to another vehicle, UP 71 BT 6157. Prior to the expiry of the original e-way bill on February 20, 2025, the petitioner extended its validity until February 24, 2025, and claims to have updated the portal with the new vehicle’s registration number. However, when the e-way bill was generated, it allegedly continued to display the number of the original, disabled vehicle (UP 78 JT 5955) instead of the transshipped one.
On February 23, 2025, the transport vehicle was intercepted by respondent No. 3. Following a physical verification and inspection, a show-cause notice was issued, culminating in a final order under Section 129(3) of the said Act, imposing a penalty.
The petitioner’s senior counsel, Mr. Pathy, argued that the officer’s findings were perverse, asserting that the correct vehicle number (UP 71 BT 6157) had been uploaded to the portal, but it failed to register. He highlighted that the e-way bill extension and interception occurred within the validity period of the e-way bill and that all particulars of the intercepted goods matched the e-invoice. He contended that the discrepancy was a technical error for which the petitioner should not be held responsible.
In response, Mr. Siddiqui, learned senior advocate and additional Government Pleader representing the respondents, submitted that the e-way bill did not reflect the transshipment by a different vehicle, only an extension of validity. He emphasized that the petitioner possessed an efficacious alternative remedy in the form of an appeal and urged the court not to entertain the writ petition.
Justice considered the arguments and the materials on record. The court acknowledged the petitioner’s claim of a valid e-invoice and e-way bill and the extension due to a vehicle snag. However, the court noted that the petitioner’s assertion of having correctly updated the transshipped vehicle’s details on the portal, despite the e-way bill printout showing the original vehicle number, would necessitate a detailed factual inquiry.
The court specifically pointed out that Mr. Dipendra Kumar, the person who allegedly uploaded the particulars, had not affirmed any affidavit to that effect. Given this, the court expressed reluctance to admit the writ petition, particularly as an efficacious alternative remedy, an appeal, was available.
The petitioner’s counsel requested a direction to the appellate authority to consider all aspects, including the claimed portal glitches, if an appeal was filed. The court affirmed that the appellate authority, being competent, would be obligated to consider all questions raised by the petitioner and dispose of the appeal in accordance with the law.
Judicial Precedents: While the judgment does not explicitly cite specific judicial precedents, the core principle guiding the Calcutta High Court’s decision aligns with a well-established tenet of administrative law and writ jurisdiction: the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy. This principle is a cornerstone of judicial review, and courts generally refrain from exercising their extraordinary writ jurisdiction when a statutory appeal mechanism or other suitable redressal avenue is provided.
The Supreme Court of India and various High Courts have consistently upheld this principle. For instance, in cases like Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks (1998) 8 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held that the power to issue prerogative writs is discretionary and can be exercised only in exceptional circumstances. One of the exceptions to entertaining a writ petition, even when an alternative remedy exists, includes situations where the order is passed without jurisdiction, a violation of natural justice occurs, or the order challenges the vires of an enactment. None of these exceptions were found to be unequivocally present in the current case, as the petitioner’s primary contention revolved around a factual dispute requiring detailed inquiry.
Similarly, in CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal (2014) 1 SCC 603, the Supreme Court reiterated that where a statutory remedy is available, a writ petition should not be entertained, particularly for matters requiring investigation into disputed questions of fact. The Calcutta High Court’s observation that “the case made out by the petitioner in paragraph 10 of the writ petition would require detailed enquiry on factual issues” directly reflects this judicial approach.
The court’s decision to dismiss the writ petition without delving into the factual dispute surrounding the alleged technical glitch on the e-way bill portal underscores the judiciary’s deference to the statutory appellate mechanism for resolving such matters. The court effectively guided the petitioner towards the appropriate forum for a full factual examination and legal determination, emphasizing the availability of a proper legal channel for redressal of grievances in such cases. The judgment reinforces the principle of exhausting statutory remedies before invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
