Abinash Kumar Singh VS the State of West Bengal

The present writ petition involves a challenge to both the affirmation order of the appellate authority and the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority on the petitioner for transporting goods using an expired e-way bill.

The petitioner had generated an e-way bill on April 23, 2022, for transporting goods. However, when their vehicle was inspected at the Cooch Behar check post on April 28, 2022, despite providing all necessary documents, the check post authority allegedly delayed issuing a gate pass, causing the e-way bill to expire on April 30, 2022. The gate pass was eventually issued on May 2, 2022.

While the vehicle was en route to its final destination after being released from Cooch Behar, it was intercepted, and it was discovered that there was no valid e-way bill. Consequently, Form GST MOV-01 and GST MOV 02 were issued.

The crux of the petitioner’s argument seems to be centered around the alleged delay and inefficiency on the part of the check post authority, which led to the expiration of the e-way bill. They contend that they had fulfilled all necessary requirements and should not be penalized for circumstances beyond their control.

The appellate authority’s decision to affirm the penalty and the adjudicating authority’s imposition of the penalty are both under scrutiny in this petition. The petitioner likely seeks relief from the penalty and possibly a review of the processes and procedures at the check post to prevent similar occurrences in the future.

The current writ petition revolves around challenging both the order of affirmation from the appellate authority and the order from the adjudicating authority that imposed a penalty on the petitioner for transporting goods with an expired e-way bill.

Here’s a detailed breakdown of the events leading up to the petition:

The petitioner had generated an e-way bill on April 23, 2022, for transporting goods. On April 28, 2022, their vehicle was inspected at the Cooch Behar check post. Despite providing all necessary documents, the authorities allegedly delayed issuing a gate pass, which was finally issued on May 2, 2022, after the e-way bill had expired on April 30, 2022.

While en route to the final destination, the vehicle was intercepted, and it was found that there wasn’t a valid e-way bill. Consequently, Form GST MOV-01 and GST MOV-02 were issued, indicating a lack of valid documents. A detention order (Form GST MOV-06) and a show cause notice (Form GST MOV-07) proposing a penalty under Section 129 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, were issued on May 5, 2022, in the driver’s name.

The petitioner responded to the show cause notice on May 9, 2022. Subsequently, another show cause notice was issued in the petitioner’s name, to which they also replied. Despite these responses, the adjudicating authority imposed a penalty upon the petitioner, which was paid to release the vehicle.

The petitioner argues that they should not be penalized since the delay in issuing the gate pass at Cooch Behar was not their fault. They contend that had the gate pass been issued promptly, the consignment would have been delivered within the e-way bill’s validity period. It’s alleged that the authorities deliberately detained the vehicle, despite repeated requests for the gate pass.

Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that there was no intention to evade taxes, as they had already paid the tax. They cite a previous court decision (on May 12, 2022, in MAT 470 of 2022 with I.A CAN 1 of 2022) involving Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Durgapore Range, Government of West Bengal v. Ashok Kumar Sureka, Proprietor of Subham Steel, as well as a judgment from July 6, 2022, in WPA 1480 of 2022 involving M/s. Ganga, to support their argument.

In summary, the petitioner challenges the penalty imposed on them, citing the delay in issuing the gate pass as beyond their control and asserting their compliance with tax obligations. They seek relief from the court based on these grounds.

The current writ petition involves a challenge against both the affirmation order of the appellate authority and the penalty order imposed by the adjudicating authority on the petitioner for transporting goods with an expired e-way bill.

The incident began when the petitioner was transporting goods using an e-way bill generated on April 23, 2022. However, upon reaching the Cooch Behar check post on April 28, 2022, the petitioner’s vehicle was allegedly delayed without reason, causing the e-way bill to expire by April 30, 2022. Despite the petitioner providing all necessary documents, the check post authority delayed issuing the gate pass until May 2, 2022.

During transit to the final destination, the vehicle was intercepted, and it was discovered that there was no valid e-way bill. Consequently, the authorities issued Form GST MOV-01 and GST MOV 02, expressing the opinion that the consignment lacked valid documentation. A detention order (Form GST MOV 06) and a show cause notice (Form GST MOV 07) proposing penalty under Section 129 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, were issued on May 5, 2022, against the driver. The petitioner responded to both notices, but the adjudicating authority imposed the penalty, which was subsequently paid by the petitioner to release the vehicle.

The petitioner argues that the delay in issuing the gate pass was not their fault and that had it been issued promptly, the consignment would have been delivered within the e-way bill’s validity period. They assert that there was no intention to evade tax, as tax had already been paid, and thus, they should not be penalized.

In support of their argument, the petitioner cites precedents, including a decision by the court on May 12, 2022, in MAT 470 of 2022 and another on July 6, 2022, in WPA 1480 of 2022.

The respondent authority opposes the petitioner’s plea, arguing that transporting goods without a valid e-way bill is illegal. They justify the penalty imposed under Section 129 of the Act, which allows detention of goods transported contrary to the Act’s provisions. The respondent emphasizes that the transporter’s intention to evade tax is irrelevant, and generating a fresh e-way bill is an option if the goods cannot be transported within the original e-way bill’s validity period.

Furthermore, the respondent contests the applicability of precedents cited by the petitioner and refers to a judgment by the court on February 6, 2023, in WPA 190 of 2023 in Ashok and Sons (HUF) –vs- Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Office of the Senior Joint Commissioner, Siliguri Circle & Ors.

After considering both parties’ arguments, it is acknowledged that the petitioner’s vehicle lacked a valid e-way bill upon interception, as the original bill had expired.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:
Calcutta High Court 

Read Another Case Law:                                      
GST Case law