Balaji Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. VS The State of Tripura

In this case, the petitioner filed a writ petition because their vehicles, which were carrying taxable goods, entered the State of Tripura later than expected, causing the validity of their ‘e-Way bills’ to expire. Despite the fact that the goods in the vehicle were duty-paid and there was no attempt to evade taxes, the authorities imposed a fresh levy of duty along with a penalty on the petitioner. This led the petitioner to seek legal recourse by filing the writ petition numbered WP(C) No.179.

The petitioner’s argument revolves around the idea that the delay in entering the state, and thus the expiration of the e-Way bills, was not intentional and should not warrant additional duties and penalties. They emphasized that the goods were already duty-paid and there was no fraudulent intention behind the expired e-Way bills. The petitioner is contesting the authorities’ decision to impose extra duty and penalties, arguing that it is unfair and unjust given the circumstances. This forms the crux of the writ petition filed to challenge the imposed levy and penalties.

The petitioner in this case faced an issue where their vehicles carrying taxable goods entered the State of Tripura later than anticipated, resulting in the expiration of their ‘e-Way bills’. Despite carrying duty-paid goods with no intent to evade taxes, the authorities imposed a new levy of duty along with a penalty. In response, the petitioner filed a writ petition (WP(C) No.179 of 2020) before the court, seeking the release of the seized goods.

On September 3, 2020, the court directed that the detained goods be released upon the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax and penalty, as indicated in Annexure-9, and securing the total demand through a bond. The court stipulated that the goods should be released within three days of the deposit and bond submission. Furthermore, the court extended the appeal filing period by 15 days from the date of the order.

Following this directive, the petitioner filed two appeals (No.20/CRB-EW/2020 & 21/CRB/EWB/2020) with the Additional Commissioner of State Tax within the specified time frame. These appeals were considered on April 16, 2021, but were dismissed by the Appellate Authority.

Subsequently, the petitioner filed another writ petition to set aside and quash the impugned order dated April 16, 2021. Mr. Somik Deb, Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. A. Baran, represented the petitioner, arguing that the petitioner had legitimately purchased two lots of Mill Machineries, which were loaded in two trucks.

The case revolves around the procedural validity of the tax and penalty imposed due to the expired e-Way bills, despite the petitioner’s compliance with duty payments, and the subsequent legal proceedings to challenge the additional levy and seek the release of the detained goods.