Calcutta High Court (HC) presided by Justice Amrita Sinha observed that breach of statutory provision would attract levy of penalty and the officer does not have any authority to either reduce or waive the penalty.
It was stated that without getting a valid E-way bill, the goods cannot and should not be transferred from one vehicle to the other, even less carried via a different vehicle.
The order was issued by the adjudicating authority and later upheld by the appellate authority imposing a fine under Section 129(3) of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, has vexed the petitioner.
The e-way bill in question was generated on 10th June, 2022 and the same was valid upto 21st June, 2022.
The fact is that the E-way bill was generated for one vehicle however the goods were transported on a different conveyance which is not mentioned in the E-way bill.
On demand, the person in charge of the goods and conveyance failed to produce any document in support of the said goods being transported by a different conveyance.
According to Section 129(3) of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act of 2017, the goods were seized and then released after payment of a penalty because the person in charge failed to submit the paperwork necessary to substantiate the movement of the products.
The proper officer may detain or confiscate the goods or conveyances pursuant to section 129(3) of the West Bengal GST Act. The proper officer shall issue a notice detailing the tax and penalty payable subsequently, grant an order for payment of the tax and penalty pursuant to section 129(1)(a), (b), and (c).
The vehicle in which the products were first loaded for transportation and an E-way bill was generated broke down in the middle of the journey, the person in charge had to make arrangements for a new vehicle to transport the stated goods, asserted the counsel of the petitioner.
Furthermore, it was stated that the collapse was an unavoidable circumstance wholly beyond the petitioner’s control. There was no intention to dodge paying taxes.
In contrast, the respondent’s counsel claimed that the petitioner’s actions in moving commodities in a vehicle without a valid e-way bill violated the Act. The vehicle was discovered to be laden with products without a valid E-way bill at the time of interception. The petitioner has legitimately received a penalty because doing the same is against the law.
The bench noted that in addition to taxation, the E-way bill is created to specify the products being transported, the origin, the destination, and the vehicle number that would be used to deliver them.
Notwithstanding the petitioner’s insistence that there was no other option but to move the items to a different vehicle for delivery to the consignee, the Calcutta HC bench ruled that this should only have been done after creating a new E-way bill.
According to the single bench, there is nothing improper in the authorities’ imposition of a fine for failing to produce an E-way bill for the vehicle used to transport the products.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
