The Calcutta High Court Set Aside 200% Penalty Imposed Due to E-Way Bill Expiry.
Facts
The appellant was carrying goods, which were consigned to Larsen & Toubro Limited in West Bengal. The e-way bill generated on 7th May, 2022 at 3:46 PM was valid upto 8th May, 2022 11:59 P.M. 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 9th 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 a 200% penalty.
Decision
The division bench of the Acting Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya noted that Section 129 of the WBGST Act deals with detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit. Subsection (1) of section 129 states that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act where any person transports any goods or stores any goods while they are in transit in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder, all such goods and conveyance used as a means of transport for carrying the said goods and documents relating to such goods and conveyance shall be liable to detention or seizure and after detention or seizure shall be released upon payment of penalty as mentioned in the clauses under subsection (1) of section 129. Therefore, what is required to be considered in every case is whether there was a contravention of the provisions of the Act.
The bench noted that admittedly the vehicle was within the area of Durgapur and even as per the revenue department, the distance between the place where the vehicle was intercepted and Durgapur was about 2o kilometres. There is no other allegation against the appellant.
The court found that this is not a case, where a penalty that too 200% penalty should have been imposed.
Case title: Progressive Metals Pvt. Limited VERSUS The Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Bureau of Investigation South Bengal, Durgapur Zone & Ors.
Citation: M.A.T. 562 OF 2023 With I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2023
