Form No. J.(2)

Item No.6 NB/PG AR(Ct.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE HEARD ON: 02.08.2025 DELIVERED ON: 02.08.2025 CORAM:

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

F.MA. 1237 of 2025 With I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2025 M/s. Appollo Plywood Industries & Ors.

Vs.

The Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax, Bureau of Investigation, North Bengal & Ors.

Appearance:-

Mr. Sandip Choraria ….. for the Appellants Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty Mr. Saptak Sanyal ……….for the State (Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.)

1. This intra-Court appeal filed by the writ petitioners is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Bench in WPA 3188 of 2025, by which the learned Single Bench held that there is no scope for passing any interim order and directed affidavit-in-opposition to be filed.

2. Since the issue involved in this appeal as well as in the writ petition lies in a narrow campus, with the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of either side, this appeal along with the writ petition i.e. WPA 3188 of 2025 is taken up for hearing and disposed of by this common judgment and order.

3. The appellants filed the writ petition challenging the order passed by the appellate authority dated November 22, 2024 under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017(for brevity “the Act”). By the said order, the appellate authority confirmed the penalty imposed on the appellants i.e. Rs.7,31,661.00/- under Section 129 of the Act on the ground that the goods were being transported without a valid e-way bill. Section 129 of the Act deals with detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit. Sub- section (1) of Section 129 commences with a non-obstante clause stating that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any person transports any goods or stores any goods while they are in transit in contravention of the provisions of this 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,- (a) on payment of penalty equal to two hundred per cent, of the tax payable on such goods and, in case of exempted goods, on payment of an amount equal to two per cent. of the value of goods or twenty five thousand rupees, whichever is less, where the owner of the goods come forward for payment of such penalty. The other sub- clauses/sub-sections in Section 129 may not be of relevance to the case on hand.

4. Rule 138 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Rules 2017 falls in Chapter XVI of the Rules, which deals with E-Way Rules. Section 138 deals with information to be furnished prior to commencement of movement of Goods and generation of e-way bill. It is not in dispute that the appellants/writ petitioners had generated the e-way bill on March 28, 2024 and the goods were transported from the State of Manipur to Raiganj in the State of West Bengal covering a distance of 1095 kms. Sub-rule (10) of Rule 138 deals with the validity period of the e-way bill, which is being generated by the transporter/owner of the goods. The second proviso under sub-rule (10) of Rule 138 states that provided further that where, under circumstances of an exceptional nature, including trans-shipment, the goods cannot be transported within the validity period of the e-way bill, the transporter may extend the validity period after updating the details in Part B of FORM GSTEWB-01, if required. The fourth proviso states that provided also that the validity of the e- way bill may be extended within eight hours from the time of its expiry. Thus, the scheme and the rules does provide for an extension beyond the period of expiry of e-way bill.

5. As noted above, the e-way bill in the instant case was generated on March 28, 2024 and the