Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.
Mohammad Shamasher – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal & Anr. – Respondents
WPA 835 of 2024
Decided on : 24-05-2024
(A) West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 129(3) - Writ petition challenging penalty imposed by Adjudicating Authority - Petitioner contended that the order was passed without jurisdiction and in violation of prior court directions - Revenue argued that the vehicle was intercepted without required documents - Court found that the petitioner failed to produce necessary documents and upheld the penalty imposed. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court held that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for filing a writ petition when the order is challenged as one without jurisdiction. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged a penalty order under the WBGST Act for transporting a JCB without valid documents, asserting that the E-way bill was valid and all details were available.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the penalty, stating that the petitioner did not comply with document requirements and the order was reasoned and lawful.
Issues: The main issues were whether the order was passed without jurisdiction and if the petitioner provided necessary documentation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner failed to produce required documents, justifying the penalty under the WBGST Act.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Arindam Mukherjee, J.
The present writ petition has been filed inter alia praying for recalling and/or cancelling and/or rescinding the penalty imposed by an order dated 27th March, 2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 129(3) of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the WBGST Act) pursuant to a direction given by this Court vide an order dated 1st February, 2024 passed in WPA 85 of 2024.
1. Facts of the case:
a) One unregistered person (in short URP) namely Pisi Suriya Singhpo of Arunachal Pradesh was returning a Hyundai make Excavator machine (hereinafter referred to as JCB) to the petitioner at its place of business at Gaya, Bihar. The petitioner holds a GSTN number being 10BMYPS0695E1ZP. The said JCB had been taken on hire from the petitioner for road excavation work.
b) On 18th April, 2023 an E-way bill was generated by the petitioner for transportation of the said JCB as “inward job work returns”. A consignment note was generated by Pisi Suriya Singhpo ( hereinafter referred to as the Consignor) wherein the consignee was the petitioner. The place of dispatch was indicated to be Changlang Miao, Arunachal Pradesh and the place of delivery was Gaya, Bihar.
c) The value of the goods was stated to be zero and the said E-way bill was valid up to 26th April, 2023.
d) The JCB loaded in a vehicle bearing no.NL01NB8041 which was also said to be mentioned in the E-way bill and the challan.
e) The said vehicle was intercepted by the Officers of the Bureau of Investigation, North Bengal Alipurduar Zone. Finding discrepancies during inspection as envisaged under Section 68(1) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the CGST Act) a case was registered with case no. APD/R/W/37/23-24 dated 21st April, 2023.
f) An order of physical verification in FORM GST MOV 02 was issued which was followed by vehicle verification of the conveyance in connection wherewith a physical verification report in FORM GST MOV 04 was also issued.
g) On 23rd April, 2023 an order of detention under Section 129(1) of the WBGST Act was passed by issuance of FORM GST MOV 06 stating that the goods were not covered by valid documents.
h) On 26th April, 2023, the Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax, Bureau of Investigation (North Bengal) Alipurduar Zone being the respondent no. 2 herein issued a show-cause (SCN) under Section 129(3) in FORM GST MOV 07 reiterating the observations made under the detention order.
i) The petitioner was directed to appear before the said Officer on 1st May, 2023. The petitioner challenged the order of detention by filing a writ petition being WPA 10607 of 2023 on 28th April, 2023.
j) By a judgment and order dated 19th May, 2023 the said writ petition was disposed of granting the petitioner liberty to make an application for provisional release of the seized goods in question along with the conveyance under the relevant provision of Section 129 of the WBGST Act within 7 (seven) days from the date of the said order.
k)The petitioner in compliance of the said order furnished a bond for provisional release of the goods in FORM GST MOV 08 along with bank guarantee on 25th May, 2023 the goods were thereafter released.
l) The respondent no. 2 on 3rd May, 2023 passed an order of penalty under Section 129(3) of the WBGST Act and issued a demand for the same.
m) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of demand, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017 on 5th June, 2023. The said appeal was registered as AD1906230017529.
n) The appeal was rejected by an order dated 27th September, 2023 issued in FORM GST APL 04.
o) The said appellate order dated 27th September, 2023 was challenged by the petitioner by filing WPA 85 of 2024. The said writ petition was allowed by a judgment and dated 1st February, 2024 by setting aside the order of the Adjudicating Authority affirmed by the Appellate Authority and directing the
The court upheld the penalty imposed under the WBGST Act, ruling that the petitioner failed to provide necessary documentation during the transport of goods.
For imposition of penalties under the GST Act, intent to evade tax must be established; mere expiration of documents does not suffice.
Minor errors in e-way bills do not justify detention under Section 129 of the CGST Act if the goods are otherwise properly documented.
Intention to evade tax is a prerequisite for imposing penalties under GST Act; mere technical issues should not warrant such penalties.
Minor documentation discrepancies do not imply intent to evade tax, and valid transport documents render penalty imposition inappropriate.
Minor procedural lapses in compliance with tax regulations should not attract severe penalties, especially when there is no intent to evade tax.
Procedural compliance in tax documentation is mandatory; failure to fill an e-way bill's section warrants penalty under tax law.
E-way bill is mandatory for transporting goods; failure to carry it raises a presumption of tax evasion, which must be rebutted by the transporter.
Minor discrepancies in transport documentation do not warrant penalties under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, with general penalties appropriately applied instead under Section....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
