Petitioner is registered company under IGST and CGST & SGST, engaged in the business of trading in paper. Petitioner files his monthly returns online regularly and pays GST timely. On Saturday, 04.01.2020 petitioner dispatched papers to its client under E-way bills for delivery in intrastate sales. Due to agitation city roads were jammed, and by the time traffic stared moving, shop of client got closed. Transporter took the trolley to his residence with goods so as to deliver them on next working day i.e on Monday,06.01.2020.

Respondent detained this goods on the ground that the validity of E-way bill generated had expired and proposed to impose tax and penalty in form no GST MOV-09. Also officer of respondent unloaded the paper boxes at non-designated area and did not issue any acknowledgement copy of receipt of detained goods to transporter.

Petitioners made representation on dated 07.01.2020 to respondent for release of goods explaining the reason for delay in delivery of goods to the client due to reasons beyond his control i.e agitation and road block by political parties. Petitioner also submitted on dated 08.01.2020 copy of rule 138 of the CGST Act, 2018 that E-way bill can be extended by one more day for a distance of not more than 100 kms in intrastate sale and copy of similar decision of Allahabad High Court in Writ Tax no 1417 of 2018.

Respondent neither did acknowledge the reply letter nor released the detained goods. Hence on dated 19.01.2020 Petitioner paid the tax and penalty thereon before the due date of filing. Petitioner again submitted a letter on dated 20.01.2020 to respondent with proof of payment and to raise the issue of missing of some paper packets in the boxes.

On dated 22.01.2020 Respondent passed a faulty order with mention that Petitioner had admitted tax and penalty ignoring all the representations, provision of act and high court decision. Respondent also quoted that under rule 138(10) of the GST Act,2017  validity of E-way bill can be extended for extra 24 hrs, provided such extension is made within four (4) hours before or four (4) hours after expiry of E-way bill. And that the petitioner had not extended the same within specified time.

Respondent also stated that to ensure safety of goods they were unloaded at non designated area because it was raining.

Respondent also stated that dealer can extend validity of E-way bill in Part-B and can send copy to driver’s mobile phone. To justify levy of penalty respondent cited that expiry of E-way bill cannot be treated as technical mistake.

Petitioner refuted the allegations and in response enquired for the authorisation order of Jt. Commissioner to conduct the vehicle checks. Petitioner called the detention notice and levy of penalty as illegal and bad in law, and denied allegations of rains on 06.01.2020. Petitioner refuted allegations of evasion of tax, and failure to prove mens rea to evade tax on the part of respondent, to contend levy of penalty as unjust.

Petitioners further submit that, penalty proceedings are quasi criminal in  nature and placed reliance on the decision of Andhra Pradesh in Delta Lubricants , Vijaywada Vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer .