The Calcutta High Court comprising Chief Justice T. S. Sivagnanam and Justice Uday Kumar has imposed the penalty of Rs. 50,000 for not renewing the expired e-way bill.
“Since on the date when the vehicle was intercepted the goods were covered by a valid e- Way Bill which satisfies the requirement under Section 129 of the Act. However, that the mistake committed by the appellants in not renewing the earlier e-Way Bill which expired on 18.03.2022 the appellants should be put on terms,” the court said.
BACKGROUND
The allegation which led to an order of penalty being passed by the respondent authority is that the goods which were being transported by the appellants to Assam were covered by e-Way Bill which was valid upto 18th March, 2022.
According to the appellants, on account of the breakdown of the vehicle the goods did not move outside the territory of the State of West Bengal and was stationed at Dankuni on 18.03.2022. The consignee in the meantime had sold the goods which were in transit to another purchaser in Assam and the goods were transported by the same vehicle after generating a new e-Way Bill on 22.03.2022.
The vehicle was detained on 25.03.2022 and order of penalty has been passed on the ground of first e-Way Bill on 18.03.2022 had not been renewed/extended by the appellants.
A charge under Section 129 of the CGST Act and WBGST Act has been led against the appellants and ultimately resulting in an imposition of 200% penalty.
JUDGEMENT
The court noted that there is a violation committed by the appellants but the violation is not as grave enough to call for imposition of penalty at the rate of 200%.
The court directed the appellants to pay a penalty of Rs.50,000 which will include both CGST and WBGST instead of 200% penalty as imposed by the authorities. Upon such the appellants are entitled to pay the said amount by agreeing to recover the sum of Rs.50,000/- from the bank guarantee which has been furnished by the appellants and upon adjustment the respondent authorities shall issue appropriate communication to the appellants’ bank to discharge the bank guarantee for the remaining amount.
Case Title: M/S Bitumix India Llp And Anr. Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Revenue
Citation: MAT/1011/2023 IA NO: CAN/1/2023