Deepika Mandal Maity VS The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bureau of Investigation, South Bengal, Howrah Zone & Ors

The case at hand involves an intra-Court appeal against an order dated January 13, 2023, concerning WPA No. 648 of 2023. This appeal stems from a writ petition filed by the appellant in response to an order issued by an adjudicating authority on December 16, 2022, imposing a penalty of Rs. 8,97,125. The penalty was levied due to an incident involving the transportation of an excavator owned by the appellant, which was intercepted, and a road challan was issued. The authority deemed this transportation to be in violation of Section 129 of the Act, thus warranting the penalty.

Crucially, there is no accusation that the appellant sold the excavator and then transported it. Instead, the appellant contends that the excavator was purchased with financial assistance from a bank, with a hypothecation agreement in place preventing its sale. Furthermore, the appellant asserts that the excavator was being utilized for various job works, and while engaged in work at a university, it sustained damage, necessitating transportation for repairs via another lorry. It was during this transport for repairs that the excavator was intercepted.

This summary captures the essence of the legal dispute, highlighting the appellant’s argument regarding the circumstances of the excavator’s transportation and the basis for contesting the imposed penalty.

The case revolves around an appeal filed by the petitioner against an order dated January 13, 2023, in WPA No. 648 of 2023. The appellant contested a penalty of Rs. 8,97,125 imposed by the adjudicating authority on December 16, 2022, for allegedly transporting an excavator in violation of Section 129 of the Act.

The appellant’s argument is centered on the fact that the excavator was not sold but was purchased through financial assistance from a bank, with a hypothecation agreement preventing its sale. They claim the excavator was being used for various job works and was being transported for repairs after sustaining damage at a university site when intercepted.

Initially, the Single Bench dismissed the writ petition, directing the appellant to file an appeal before the appellate authority to address factual issues. However, the Court recognizes the impracticality of detaining the vehicles, as it would diminish their value and hinder the appellant’s ability to make loan repayments to the bank. This would render the penalty order ineffective.

Therefore, the Court affirms the directive to file an appeal but allows the release of both vehicles upon the appellant’s undertaking not to sell the excavator until the appeal’s resolution. This decision aims to balance the need for due process with practical considerations regarding the appellant’s financial obligations and the preservation of asset value. The case involves an intra-Court appeal against an order issued in January 2023, related to a writ petition filed by the appellant challenging a penalty levied against them for transporting an excavator. The appellant’s argument was that the excavator was not sold but was being transported for repairs after sustaining damage during a job at a university. The Single Bench dismissed the writ petition, directing the appellant to file an appeal instead. However, the Court recognized that detaining the vehicle would harm its value and hinder the appellant’s ability to repay bank loans. Therefore, it ordered the release of both vehicles upon the filing of an appeal and the payment of a pre-deposit, with the condition that the excavator not be sold until the appeal’s resolution. The release was to occur within three days of filing the appeal. The appeal and associated application were disposed of, with no costs awarded, and the parties were granted urgent copies of the order upon completion of legal formalities.

Download PDF:
Deepika Mandal Maity

For Reference Visit:
Calcutta High Court

Read Another Case Law:                                      
GST Case law