2023 (7) TMI 144 - HC - GST

Levy of tax and penalty - absence of E-way - generation of the new e-way bill in connection with the second vehicle (where goods were shifted subsequent to breakdown of first vehicle) in question - HELD THAT - The case of the petitioner as made out in this with petition regarding the break down of the vehicle in question and generation of new e-way bill generated in respect of the same goods in question within three minutes after the interception of the vehicle in question by the respondents, has not been properly considered by the Appellate Authority for rejection and dismissal of the appeal on this ground is too much technical in this case as appears to this court from the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned order dated 12th September, 2022 along with the rectification order dated 16th November, 2022 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority concerned to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its authorised representative - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order of the Appellate Authority under WBGST Act dismissing the appeal and confirming penalty and tax imposition for not having e-way bill at the time of interception of the vehicle.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Appellate Authority under the WBGST Act, which dismissed the appeal and upheld the penalty and tax imposition for not having an e-way bill at the time of vehicle interception. The petitioner contended that they had a valid e-way bill generated before the breakdown of the original vehicle, and when the goods were shifted to another vehicle due to the breakdown, a new e-way bill was generated within three minutes of interception of the second vehicle. The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority did not properly consider the circumstances surrounding the breakdown and the prompt generation of a new e-way bill for the second vehicle.

The High Court, upon considering the facts and submissions of both parties, found that the Appellate Authority's rejection of the appeal based on the technicality of not having an e-way bill at the time of interception was not justified. The Court noted that the circumstances of the breakdown and the immediate generation of a new e-way bill were not adequately taken into account by the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned order and the rectification order, remanding the matter back to the Appellate Authority for a fresh decision. The Appellate Authority was directed to pass a new order after providing an opportunity for the petitioner or its representative to be heard and considering the observations made by the High Court on the issue raised by the petitioner. The Appellate Authority was instructed to do so within 12 weeks from the date of communication of the High Court's order.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, emphasizing the need for a fresh decision by the Appellate Authority that takes into account the circumstances surrounding the breakdown of the original vehicle and the prompt generation of a new e-way bill for the second vehicle within a short period after interception.