JUDGMENT :

AMRITA SINHA, J.

1. The order of affirmation of the appellate authority and the order of the adjudicating authority imposing penalty upon the petitioner for transporting goods against an expired e-way bill both are under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner was transporting goods against an e-way bill which was generated on 23rd April, 2022. The vehicle of the petitioner was checked at the Cooch Behar check post on 28th April, 2022. The petitioner alleges that despite producing all necessary documents in connection with the consignment, the check post authority kept the vehicle waiting and deliberately did not issue gate pass permitting the vehicle to leave the check post. The vehicle was ultimately issued gate pass on 2nd May, 2022, by which time, the e-way bill expired on 30th April, 2022.

3. After the vehicle was released from Cooch Behar and was on the way to the final destination, the same was intercepted and being found that there wasn’t a valid e-way bill, Form GST MOV-01 and GST MOV 02 were issued with a prima facie opinion that the consignment was not supported by any valid documents. A detention order was issued in Form GST MOV 06 and show cause notice issued in Form GST MOV 07 dated 5th May, 2022 in the name of the driver with a proposal for imposition of penalty under Section 129 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

4. The petitioner submitted reply on 9th May, 2022. A further show cause notice was issued in the name of the petitioner and he duly submitted reply to the same. The adjudicating authority considered the reply and not being satisfied with the reasons mentioned therein for transporting the goods without a valid e-way bill, imposed penalty upon the petitioner. On payment of the penalty amount, the vehicle of the petitioner was released.

5. The petitioner contends that he ought not to be imposed the penalty amount as the petitioner was in no way responsible for the delay in issuing the gate pass at Cooch Behar. Had the gate pass been issued by the authority immediately upon verification of the documents, then the consignment could have been delivered within the validity period of the e-way bill.

6. It has been represented that the concerned authority deliberately detained the vehicle for an unusually long period of time and despite repeated requests, did not issue the gate pass permitting the petitioner to move on.

7. It has been argued that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to evade tax as he had paid the tax in the first place, and as such, the petitioner ought not to be saddled with penalty.

8. In support of the aforesaid contention the petitioner relies on the decision passed by this Court on 12th May, 2022 in MAT No. 470 of 2022 with I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2022; Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Durgapore Range, Government of West Bengal vs. Ashok Kumar Sureka, Proprietor of Subham Steel and the judgment dated 6th July, 2022 in WPA 1480 of 2022 in M/s. Ganga Hanuman Hydroprojects Private Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner, State Tax Authority, Siliguri Circle and Another.

9. Prayer has been made for setting aside the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority.

10. The respondent authority opposes the prayer of the petitioner. It has been submitted that the action of transporting any goods without a valid e-way bill is impermissible in law. The authority intercepted the vehicle and as no valid e-way bill was produced, penalty was imposed.

11. Reliance has been placed on the provision of Section 129 of the Act which permits detention of goods if the same is transported in contravention of the provision of the Act and the corresponding Rules.

12. It has been contended that the intention of the transporter whether or not to evade payment of tax is not the relevant consideration for imposition of penalty if the goods are found to be transported without a valid e-way bill. There is provision in the Act for generating fresh e-way