28.07.2025 ML Item No. 37 Ct.-05 Sayandeep Amit Mines Private Limited & anr.

versus Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bureau of Investigation (South Bengal) & ors.

Mr. Somnath Roy Chowdhury Ms. Sanjana Jha Ms. Sukanya Dutta Mr. Avinash K. Jha Mr. Partha Sathi Das ….for the petitioners Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty Mr. Saptak Sanyal Mr. Debraj Sahu ……for the State

1. Challenging an order passed by the appellate authority dated 29^th August, 2024 under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the instant writ petition has been filed. It is the petitioners’ case that the petitioners’ claim to be engaged in a business of iron and steel. In usual course, the petitioners had contracted for supply of 29.630 MTs of sponge iron from Shyam sel & power Limited. The aforesaid consignment of 29.630 MTs. of sponge iron was dispatched on 12th December, 2023 through the transporter, namely, Sri Balaji Constructions and Logistics for being delivered to Amit Metaliks Limited.

2. Records would reveal that while in transit the validity of the e-way bill generated on 3^rd December, 2023 expired on the midnight of 13th/14th December, 2023 and the vehicle along with the goods were intercepted on 14^th December, 2023 at around 1:39 p.m. From the notice in MOV 07 dated 25th December, 2023, it would transpire that the primary allegation in the said notice is with regard to the failure of the petitioners to re-validate the e-way bill within the period of 8 hrs. and that the distance of 29 kms. ought to have been covered ordinarily in 2 to 3 hours. The petitioners appear to have obtained release of the goods vide release order dated 27^th December, 2023 upon payment of penalty as provided for in Section 129 (1)(a) of the said Act. The petitioners, however, did not respond to the above show-cause and an order under Section 129(3) of the said Act was passed on 27th December, 2023 itself.

3. Being aggrieved the petitioner had preferred an appeal. The appellate authority had disposed of the appeal by confirming the penalty vide order dated 29^th August, 2024 by relying on the Judgment in the case of Pushpa Devi Jain v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, Bureau of Investigation, North Bengal Headquarters & ors.

in WPA 178 of 2023.

4. Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners would submit that though the petitioners had specifically made out a case that there had been breakdown of the vehicle and that the petitioner had no intention to commit any tax fraud, such aspect had not been appropriately considered. He would submit that the appellate authority had failed to take note of the fact that there was no lack of bonafide and as such in the facts, no penalty could have been imposed. In support of his contention that the appellate authority was bound to consider the defence case, he has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Asian Switchgear Private Limited v. State Tax officer, Bereau of Investigation, North Bengal, Head Quarters & Ors. reported in 2024(3) Goods and Services Tax Advices. He has also placed before this Court judgment delivered by this Court in the case of M/s Maa Amba Builders & Anr. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax Bureau of Investigation, North Bengal HQ & Ors., reported in 2024(162) taxman.com 660 (Calcutta). According to him, the Judgment delivered in the case of Pushpa Devi Jain (supra) was interfered with by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pushpa Devi Jain v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, Bureau of Investigation, North Bengal Headquarters & Ors., reported in 2024(3) Goods and Services Tax Advices 289 wherein the Division Bench had held that as there was no lack of bonafide of the appellant the authority could not impose penalty on the appellant. Having regard thereto, he would submit that the aforesaid imposition of penalty cannot be sustained.

5. Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate appears on behalf of the respondents. He would submit that there is