01 11.12. CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

2025 IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

Ct. No.

APPELLATE SIDE

551

Ab

WPA 2422 of 2025

M/s. Damroo Enterprise

Vs.

The State of West Bengal and others.

---------------

Mr. Rajdeep Mazumder, Mr. Mayukh Mukherjee,

Mr. Supriyo Dutta,

Ms. Sagnika Banerjee.

… for the petitioner.

Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty,

Mr. Saptak Sanyal.

… for the State.

1. This writ petition assails an order dated November

21, 2025 passed in Form- GSTMOV-09 by the Deputy Joint Commissioner of Revenue, Sales Tax, Jalpaiguri Circle, whereby penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017 (in short ‘said Act of 2017’) has been imposed upon

the petitioner.

2. The case run in the writ petition is that the

petitioner had sold areca nuts to one Navkar Tradex at Delhi and as such the goods were to be transported to the said purchaser. On November 11, 2025, while the petitioner’s consignment was in transit, same was intercepted by the respondents- GST authorities and detained near Gosala More,

Jalpaiguri. It is the petitioner’s case that the vehicle was travelling from Assam to Delhi and was carrying proper invoice and e-way bill that had been generated in accordance with the said Act of

2017 and the Rules framed thereunder.

3. It has been contended by the petitioner that in terms of the tax invoice and e-way bill “the conveyance was placed in the goods vehicle in Sundarighopa, Assam but the concerned authority alleged that as per the RFID the conveyance was placed in the West Bengal particularly between Rangalibazna Toll Plaza and Husludanga Toll Plaza”.

4. On November 14, 2025, an order of detention in Form GSTMOV-07 was served upon the petitioner’s representative and a notice to show-cause was also served upon the petitioner to which, the petitioner replied by e-mail dated November 18, 2025. Thereafter, on November 21, 2025, an order in Form GST MOV-09 was passed against the petitioner holding that the petitioner was liable to pay penalty to the tune of Rs. 79,69,500/- under Section 129(1)(b) of the said Act of 2017. It is this order, which has been assailed in the present writ petition.

5. Mr. Mazumder, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the order has been passed in utter violation of the provisions of Section 129(1)(a) of the said Act of 2017 inasmuch as, the petitioner is the owner of the goods and in terms of the said provision, if the petitioner has come forward as the owner of the goods then penalty could have only been imposed in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the said Act of 2017 and there was no reason for invoking Section

129(1)(b) of the said Act of 2017.

6. It is further submitted that there was no discrepancy found by the respondents-GST authorities as regards the goods loaded and that the order is wholly without basis inasmuch as the same has been passed only on the basis of RIFD data. He relies on a judgment of a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Shekhar Kumar @ Shekhar Bagaria vs. State of West Bengal reported at [2025] 174 taxmann.com 233 (Calcutta) and submits that RIFD data could not form the sole basis of passing an order under Section 129 of the said Act of 2017.

7. Relying on a judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in case Goutam Bhowmik vs. State of West Bengal, reported at [2024] 158 taxmann.com 399 (Calcutta), it has been submitted by Mr. Mazumdar that although the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the said Act of 2017, yet in a case where the respondent authority has acted in total breach of the statutory mandate, the Writ Court should interfere with the order impugned before it.

8. Reliance is also placed by Mr. Mazumder on another Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Ashok Sharma vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (FMA 136 of 2025) decided on February 11, 2025 to contend that when there is no variance in the gross description of p