GST: E-way bill expiry- No penalty in absence of evidence questioning appellant’s bona fides

Progressive Metals Pvt. Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner (Calcutta High Court)

It is not in dispute that the vehicle along with the goods entered the Durgapur industrial belt within the validity of the e-way bill. The vehicle was intercepted on 9^th May, 2022 at 9:35 AM at Durgapur and the vehicle was detained along with the goods on the ground that the e-way bill had expired on 8th May, 2022 at 11:59 AM. The explanation given by the appellant was that it was a Sunday and the consignee had given instructions to unload the goods at a different location within the same area and in this regard the appellant had produced e-mail sent by the consignee stating that they had given instructions subsequently to unload the goods at a different location within the area to which the goods were sent as per the e-way bill. The original authority did not accept the explanation given by the appellant and imposed 200% penalty. An appeal was preferred against the said order to the Senior Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Chowringhee Circle, who by order dated 26^th September, 2022 affirmed the order of penalty imposed by the original authority and dismissed the appeal petition. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the writ petition.

HC held that we are convinced that on facts, there was no intention on the part of the appellant to evade payment of tax. In any event, in terms of rule 138 of the WBGST Rules, if an e-way bill had expired, the transporter had 08 hours time to seek for extension of the time stipulated in the e-way bill. If that allowance is given, at the time when the vehicle along with the goods were intercepted, it was delayed by about 01 hour and 35 minutes. The particular details given in the e-way bill will show that the area Durgapur has also been mentioned. It is not disputed that the vehicle was within the Durgapur industrial belt though not at Panagarh. Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of any material produced by the revenue to doubt the bona fides of the appellant, we are of the view that penalty should not have been imposed in this case.

Therefore, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we find that this is not a case, where penalty that too 200% penalty should have been imposed.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.