Rumki Biswas VS Senior Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Budge Budge Charge

This document pertains to an application for condoning a delay of 68 days in filing an appeal. The court considered the application in the following steps:

The application sought to condone a delay of 68 days in filing an appeal.

1. Mr. Vinay Kr. Shraff, the learned counsel for the appellant, assisted by Ms. Priya Sarah Paul, and Mr. Debasish Ghosh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State, were heard by the court.

2. After reviewing the reasons presented in the affidavit supporting the application, the court was convinced that the reasons justified the delay.

3. Consequently, the application for condonation of the delay (I.A. No.CAN 1 of 2022) was approved, and no costs were ordered.

Regarding MAT 1777 of 2022:

4. The intra-court appeal was filed by the writ petitioner challenging the order dated 4th August 2022, passed in W.P.A. No.17507 of 2022.

5. The Single Bench had previously declined to grant any interim relief to the appellant, which led the appellant to seek redress before this higher court.

In summary, the court condoned the delay in filing the appeal after considering the justifications presented, and the intra-court appeal was filed as a result of the writ petitioner’s dissatisfaction with the previous order that denied interim relief.

In this writ petition, the appellant is challenging an order from the Senior Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Budge Budge Charge, dated June 5, 2022. This order affirmed a previous decision by the original authority on March 30, 2022, which imposed a 200% penalty on the appellant for allegedly violating Rule 138 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax (WBGST) and Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The key issue under consideration is whether the appellant intended to evade payment of duty.

The appellate authority’s order is notably lengthy and detailed. However, the main point that needs to be addressed is whether there was any intent on the appellant’s part to avoid paying the required duty. If the appellant can satisfactorily demonstrate that there was no such intent, the proceedings should be dismissed, and no further action would be necessary.

The appellant’s case hinges on the generation of the e-way bill, a document required for the transportation of goods under the GST regime. On March 22, 2022, the appellant generated part A of the e-way bill and then part B on March 24, 2022. However, due to an inability to load the goods onto the vehicle, the appellant canceled part A of the e-way bill dated March 22, 2022, and subsequently generated a new part A on March 24, 2022. This sequence of actions is central to the appellant’s defense against the penalty imposed.

The contention is that the procedural actions regarding the e-way bill did not constitute an intention to evade tax but were merely logistical adjustments. The resolution of this matter depends on whether the appellant’s explanation is accepted as satisfactory, indicating no intention to evade duty. If accepted, the penalty proceedings should be terminated accordingly.

The writ petition challenges an order by the Senior Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Budge Budge Charge, dated June 5, 2022. This order upheld an earlier decision from March 30, 2022, imposing a 200% penalty on the appellant for allegedly violating Rule 138 of the WBGST/CGST Rules, 2017. The appellate authority’s order is notably lengthy, but the core issue it addresses is whether the appellant intended to evade duty payment. If the appellant can satisfactorily demonstrate no such intent, the proceedings should be dropped.

The appellant claims that they initially generated Part A of the e-way bill on March 22, 2022, and Part B on March 24, 2022. However, due to an inability to load the goods onto the vehicle, they canceled the original Part A and created a new Part A e-way bill on March 24, 2022. At the time of the vehicle’s interception, the driver possessed Part B of an e-way bill for which Part A had been canceled.

The central question is whether this situation indicates an intention to evade duty or move goods clandestinely. Prima facie, it seems to be a bona fide error rather than an intentional evasion of duty.

The appellant’s advocate argues that the generation of a new Part B e-way bill within two hours of the vehicle’s detention demonstrates no intention to evade duty. The appellate authority’s lengthy order, which references various High Court decisions, partly resulted from the appellant’s reliance on these precedents. However, the primary issue that should have been addressed was establishing the appellant’s bona fides.

In summary, the key point for consideration is the intent behind the appellant’s actions. If it can be proven that there was no intention to evade duty, the matter should be resolved without further complications.

The summary outlines a legal challenge against an order imposed by the Senior Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, regarding a penalty on the appellant for violating certain tax rules. The appellant contests the imposition of a 200% penalty and argues that there was no intention to evade payment of duty. They explain that a procedural error occurred with the e-way bill, which they claim was a genuine mistake and not an attempt to evade taxes.

The court reviews the case and finds that the appellant’s actions do not appear to be an intentional evasion of duty but rather a bona fide error. The appellate authority’s order is criticized for being unnecessarily lengthy and for referencing irrelevant court decisions. The court decides to remand the matter back to the appellate authority for a fresh consideration, focusing specifically on whether there was a deliberate intention to evade tax. The appellant is instructed to present their case with relevant evidence without burdening the authority with unnecessary legal references, as the matter primarily hinges on factual circumstances.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:                                      

GST Case law: