Ajay Shaw VS The Assistant Commissioner State Tax

In the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging an order issued by the appellate authority under the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax (WBGST) Act. The appellate authority’s order, which is under scrutiny, has affirmed the decision made by the adjudicating authority. The core issue revolves around the imposition of a penalty on the petitioner for transporting goods. The learned advocates representing the parties have presented their arguments in the court.

The petitioner argues that the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority, which was subsequently upheld by the appellate authority, is unjustified and seeks relief from the court through this writ petition. The detailed nature of the arguments presented by the learned advocates, as well as the legal reasoning behind both the adjudicating and appellate authorities’ decisions, will be crucial in determining the outcome of this petition.

petitioner. The petitioner contends that the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the appellate authority under the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax (WBGST) Act is unjustified. The crux of the petitioner’s argument lies in the timing discrepancy between the expiration of the e-way bill and the interception of the vehicle transporting the goods in question.

According to the petitioner, the e-way bill expired on 22nd August 2021 at 11:59 p.m., while the vehicle was intercepted at 9:30 p.m. on 23rd August 2021, approximately 21 hours later. The petitioner asserts that this time gap, being less than a day, should not warrant the imposition of a penalty. Moreover, the petitioner emphasizes that there was no deliberate intention to evade taxes associated with the transportation.

Therefore, the petitioner seeks judicial intervention to quash the impugned order of the appellate authority that confirmed the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. The crux of the argument is centered on the interpretation of the WBGST Act regarding penalties for transportation of goods after the expiration of an e-way bill, particularly focusing on the timing aspect and the absence of deliberate tax evasion intent on the petitioner’s part.

In this writ petition, the petitioner has contested a decision by the appellate authority under the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax (WBGST) Act. The appellate authority upheld a penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority for transporting a vehicle after the expiration of its e-way bill, which had expired on August 22, 2021, at 11:59 p.m. The vehicle in question was intercepted at 9:30 p.m. on August 23, 2021, resulting in a time gap of approximately 21 hours from the bill’s expiry.

The petitioner argues that this time gap, though less than a day, was due to genuine circumstances, specifically the breakdown of the vehicle. The petitioner asserts there was no intention to evade taxes. The crux of the challenge lies in the imposition of the penalty despite the claimed extenuating circumstances surrounding the expiration and subsequent transport of the vehicle.

In the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the appellate authority under the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax (WBGST) Act, which upheld the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. The penalty was imposed because the petitioner transported a vehicle after the expiry of the e-way bill, which had expired on August 22, 2021, at 11:59 p.m. The vehicle in question was intercepted at 9:30 p.m. on August 23, 2021, resulting in a time gap of approximately 21 hours since the expiry of the e-way bill.

The petitioner contends that the delay of less than a day was due to genuine reasons, specifically a breakdown of the vehicle. It is asserted that there was no intention to evade tax. In support of this argument, the learned advocate for the petitioner refers to a previous order of the Court dated March 1, 2022, in WPA No. 11085 of 2021 involving Ashok Kumar Sureka vs. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Durgapur Range, and also a Division Bench decision dated May 12, 2022, in MAT No. 470 of 2022. These cases are cited to emphasize precedents where similar issues have been considered by the Court.

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges an order from the appellate authority under the WBGST Act, which upheld a penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. The penalty was for transporting a vehicle after the expiry of an e-way bill, which expired on 22nd August 2021 at 11:59 p.m. The vehicle in question was intercepted at 9:30 p.m. on 23rd August 2021, creating a time gap of approximately 21 hours since the bill expired.

The petitioner argues that this gap, less than a day, was due to unforeseen circumstances, specifically a breakdown of the vehicle. There was no intention to evade taxes, and the petitioner contends that the breakdown was genuine.

The petitioner’s advocate supports this argument by citing a previous order of the court dated 1st March 2022 in WPA No. 11085 of 2021 involving Ashok Kumar Sureka vs. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Durgapur Range, and a Division Bench decision dated 12th May 2022 in MAT No. 470 of 2022.

On the other hand, the respondents’ advocate failed to establish any deliberate or willful intention on the part of the petitioner to evade taxes.

In summary, the writ petition challenges a penalty imposed for transporting a vehicle after the expiry of an e-way bill, citing a genuine breakdown as the reason for the delay, and contests any accusation of deliberate tax evasion.

In this writ petition, the petitioner contested the appellate authority’s decision under the WBGST Act, which upheld a penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. The penalty stemmed from transporting a vehicle after the expiry of an e-way bill, which expired on August 22, 2021, at 11:59 p.m. The vehicle was intercepted at 9:30 p.m. on August 23, 2021, creating a time gap of approximately 21 hours.

The petitioner argued that there was no intention to evade taxes, attributing the delay to a genuine breakdown of the vehicle. The petitioner’s advocate cited a previous court order dated March 1, 2022, in WPA No. 11085 of 2021 (Ashok Kumar Sureka vs. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Durgapur Range), and a Division Bench decision dated May 12, 2022, in MAT No. 470 of 2022, to support this contention.

The respondent’s advocate failed to establish any deliberate intention by the petitioner to evade taxes. Considering the facts and the precedents cited, the court disposed of the writ petition (WPA 18137 of 2022) by overturning the appellate and adjudicating authority’s orders. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the taxed amount and penalty, subject to fulfilling legal requirements.

In the present writ petition, the petitioner contested an order from the appellate authority under the WBGST Act, which upheld a penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. This penalty arose due to the transportation of a vehicle after the expiry of its e-way bill, which had expired on August 22, 2021, at 11:59 p.m. The vehicle in question was intercepted at 9:30 p.m. on August 23, 2021, creating a time gap of approximately 21 hours since the bill expiration.

The petitioner argued that there was no intention to evade taxes, citing a genuine breakdown of the vehicle as the reason for the delay. Supporting their case, the petitioner’s advocate referenced a previous court order dated March 1, 2022, in WPA No. 11085 of 2021 (Ashok Kumar Sureka vs. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Durgapur Range) and a Division Bench decision dated May 12, 2022, in MAT No. 470 of 2022.

The respondent’s advocate failed to demonstrate any deliberate or willful intention by the petitioner to evade taxes. Given the circumstances and the precedent set by the aforementioned court orders, the High Court disposed of the writ petition (WPA 18137 of 2022) by overturning the impugned orders of the appellate and adjudicating authorities. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the tax and penalty, subject to fulfilling legal requirements.

With these observations, the writ petition is concluded.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: