Case tittle | Asian Switchgear Private Limited VS State Tax Officer, Bureau of Investigation |
court | Calcutta high court |
Honourable judge | Justice Amrita Sinha |
Citation | 2023 (03) GSTPanacea 301 HC Calcutta WPA 340 Of 2023 |
Judgment date | 03-March-2023 |
The petitioner is disputing a penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which was upheld by the appellate authority. They are seeking to have the orders overturned and to be refunded the penalty amount.
The situation revolves around an e-way bill generated on June 10, 2022, valid until June 21, 2022, which specified a particular vehicle number for transportation. However, on June 19, 2022, the goods listed on the e-way bill were found being transported in a different conveyance, not mentioned in the e-way bill. When asked, the person in charge of the goods and conveyance failed to provide any supporting documents indicating the authorization for the goods to be transported in the different conveyance.
petitioner is aggrieved by an order imposing a penalty under Section 129(3) of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which was upheld by the appellate authority. The penalty was imposed because the goods being transported were intercepted from a different conveyance than the one mentioned in the e-way bill, and the person in charge failed to produce supporting documents. The petitioner argues that the original vehicle suffered a breakdown, necessitating a change in conveyance, and that the goods, electrical switches manufactured for the Arunachal Pradesh Government, were not intended for sale in the open market. They contend that the breakdown was unforeseen and beyond their control, with no intention to evade tax.
The petitioner asserts that they were not given a proper opportunity to defend themselves and that the penalty was imposed mechanically, without considering their genuine difficulty. They argue that since the e-way bill was still valid at the time of interception, the penalty should not have been imposed. Additionally, they claim that they were not afforded a fair opportunity to present their case at either the adjudication stage or before the appellate forum, with their show cause reply being disregarded as a mere formality. They seek to have the penalty orders set aside and the penalty amount refunded.
The petitioner is challenging an order imposing a penalty under Section 129(3) of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The e-way bill for transporting goods was generated, but the goods were intercepted from a different vehicle not mentioned in the e-way bill. The petitioner argues that the original vehicle broke down, necessitating a different conveyance, and that the goods, electrical switches meant for the Arunachal Pradesh Government, had no market value outside of government use. They claim the breakdown was unforeseen and beyond their control, with no intention to evade tax.
The petitioner contends that they were not given a fair opportunity to explain the situation and that the penalty was imposed mechanically. They argue that since the e-way bill was still valid at the time of interception, no penalty should have been imposed. Furthermore, they assert that the penalty determination was made before they were given a chance to be heard, contrary to Section 129(4) of the Act.
Additionally, the petitioner argues that instead of imposing a hefty penalty, the authorities should have released the goods upon providing security, as per Section 129(1)(c) of the Act. They maintain that the goods being transported were meant for government use, and thus, there was no intent to profit from transporting them via a different conveyance.
The petitioner cites legal precedents to support their case, including judgments from the Supreme Court and previous court orders. However, the respondents argue that the petitioner violated the law by transporting goods without a proper e-way bill, justifying the imposition of the penalty.
In summary, the petitioner seeks to have the penalty order overturned and the penalty refunded, arguing that the circumstances leading to the interception of the goods were beyond their control and that they should have been given a fair opportunity to explain their situation before any penalty was imposed.
petitioner in this case has contravened the provisions of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner seeks relief from the penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the Act, arguing that the circumstances leading to the penalty were beyond their control and that there was no intention to evade tax.
The incident stems from the interception of goods on 19th June, 2022, which were being transported without the proper documentation specified in the e-way bill. The petitioner explains that the original vehicle intended for transporting the goods experienced a mechanical breakdown, necessitating a change in conveyance. They argue that the goods, electrical switches manufactured for the Arunachal Pradesh Government’s specific use, had limited market value and were not intended for general sale.
The petitioner contends that the penalty was unjustly imposed without a fair opportunity to explain the situation and without proper consideration of their response. They argue that the penalty determination occurred before they had a chance to be heard, contrary to the provisions of Section 129(4) of the Act. Additionally, they argue that instead of a penalty, the authorities should have considered releasing the goods upon furnishing security as per Section 129(1)(c) of the Act.
In contrast, the respondents oppose the petitioner’s plea, asserting that transporting goods without a proper e-way bill is a clear violation of the Act. They cite legal precedents, including a Supreme Court judgment, to argue that proving intent is not necessary for imposing penalties under statutory obligations.
Upon considering the arguments from both sides, the court notes the importance of e-way bills in tracking goods for taxation purposes and ensuring compliance with transportation regulations. The court observes that the petitioner’s actions contravened the provisions of the Act by transporting goods without the proper documentation. Despite the unforeseen circumstances of the vehicle breakdown, the petitioner was obligated to adhere to the requirements of the e-way bill system.
Ultimately, the court upholds the decision of the adjudicating and appellate authorities, affirming the penalty imposed on the petitioner. The court emphasizes the necessity of following the e-way bill procedures to maintain transparency and accountability in the transportation of goods.
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit:
Calcutta High Court
Read Another Case Law:
GST Case law