Jagat Saha Vs State of West Bengal And Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
In the case of Jagat Saha vs. State of West Bengal and Ors., the Calcutta High Court addressed the imposition of a penalty under Section 129(3) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, for the transportation of goods without a registered additional place of business. The dispute arose when a transport of CR coils, weighing 219.70 kg, from Dankuni to Raiganj was intercepted by authorities. The appellant, Jagat Saha, had challenged an order from the appellate authority that reduced a 200% penalty to 100% but did not set it aside entirely.
The court examined the facts presented by the appellant. The driver had produced an original invoice, E-Way bill, and a stock transfer voucher upon interception. The appellate authority’s order acknowledged that the necessary documents were produced, contradicting the initial interception report that claimed no documents were attached. The E-Way bill detailed the goods were for a job worker in Dankuni and were being transported as a stock transfer back to the appellant’s factory in Raiganj.
Despite admitting that there was no “mens rea” or intention to evade tax, the appellate authority had imposed a 100% penalty. This was on the grounds that the transportation was to a location not registered as an “additional place of business” or a sister concern. The court found this reasoning flawed. The existence of all relevant documents, including the invoice from the job worker and the stock transfer voucher, confirmed the legitimacy of the transaction and the absence of any intent to evade tax.
