2022 (4) TMI 1542 - HC - GST

Levy of 200% penalty in terms of section 129 of the WBGST Act, 2017 - vehicle detained on the ground of expired E-way bill - HELD THAT - The revenue would rely upon rule 138 of the rules to state that the appellant ought to possess a valid e-way bill and admittedly when the vehicle was intercepted, time stipulated in the e-way bill had expired. Sub-rule (10) of rule 138 lays down the validity period for a e-way bill. The 2nd proviso in sub-rule (10) provides that in circumstances of an exceptional nature including trans-shipment, the goods cannot be transported within the validity period of the e-way bill. The transporter may extend the validity period after updating the details in Part B of FORM GST EWB-01 - third proviso states that the validity of e-way bill may be extended within 8 hours from the time of its expiry. Thus, the rules give certain latitude and therefore, the conduct of the transporter is required to be examined bearing in mind that the rule itself provides for extension of the validity period of the e-way bill and the transporter has been given a latitude of 8 hours to seek for such extension. If that benefit is granted to the appellant, then the delay would be about 1 hour and 35 minutes. Further, consignee Larsen Toubro Construction had sent an e-mail on 15th May, 2022 stating that initially the goods were consigned to Kankora, Near Shantiniketan Road, Trilokchandrapur, Bud Bud, Panagarh, Durgapur, Barddhaman, West Bengal-713148. However, subsequently the consignee thought it to bring to another yard located at Degaule Avenue, Durgapur and the officer of the consignee accordingly, communicated the same - Admittedly the vehicle was within the area of Durgapur and even as per the revenue department, the distance between the place where the vehicle was intercepted and Durgapur was about 20 kilometres. There is no other allegation against the appellant. This is not a case, where penalty that too 200% penalty should have been imposed - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 129 of the WBGST Act regarding the imposition of a 200% penalty.
2. Examination of the circumstances leading to the detention of goods and conveyance under section 129.
3. Analysis of the validity period of an e-way bill under rule 138 of the WBGST Rules.
4. Consideration of the transporter's conduct and the latitude provided for extending the e-way bill's validity period.
5. Assessment of the intention of the transporter in cases of statutory obligation contravention.

Analysis:
The High Court of Calcutta heard an intra-Court appeal concerning the imposition of a 200% penalty under section 129 of the WBGST Act. The appellant's goods were detained due to an expired e-way bill, despite entering the designated area within the validity period. The appellant explained that the consignee requested unloading at a different location, supported by email evidence. The Court found no intention to evade tax and noted the transporter's ability to seek an extension within 8 hours of expiry as per rule 138 of the WBGST Rules. The Court emphasized the need to assess contravention of statutory provisions in detaining goods and conveyances.

The revenue relied on rule 138 to argue for a valid e-way bill, highlighting the expired stipulated time upon interception. The rule allowed for extending the validity period in exceptional circumstances, granting the transporter an 8-hour window for such extensions. Considering the transporter's delay of 1 hour and 35 minutes, the Court examined the consignee's communication redirecting the goods within the same area. The Court concluded that the penalty imposition was unwarranted given the circumstances and the transporter's compliance with the rules regarding the e-way bill's validity extension.

In analyzing the transporter's conduct, the Court referenced the latitude provided by the rules for extending e-way bill validity. The Court considered the consignee's redirection of goods within the Durgapur area, where the vehicle was intercepted, and the absence of any other allegations against the appellant. Ultimately, the Court held that a 200% penalty was unjustified in this case, given the peculiar facts and circumstances. The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the orders of the appellate and original authorities, thereby disposing of the appeal and connected application.

In conclusion, the Court's decision highlighted the importance of assessing the transporter's conduct in relation to statutory obligations, emphasizing the need to consider the specific circumstances and the latitude provided by the rules for extending the validity period of e-way bills. The judgment serves as a reminder of the necessity to evaluate each case individually and not impose penalties unjustly, especially when there is no evidence of intent to evade tax obligations.