2023 (9) TMI 1235 - HC - GST

Levy of penalty - conveyance was found to be transporting goods without any e-way bill and tax invoice - contravention of Section 68 of the WBGST Act of 2017 corresponding to Section 68 of the CGST Act 2017 read with Rule 138 of the WBGST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT - This Court is inclined to hold that the matter be remanded to the appellate authority for revisiting the same upon consideration of the submission which may be made on behalf of both the parties before the authority. The appellate authority shall arrive at a decision as to whether the vehicle in question was in movement at the time of alleged interception of the same, thereby attracting the provisions laid down under Sections 68 and 129 of the Act of 2017. The writ petition is disposed directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider the appeal upon affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the interested persons including the petitioner and pass a reasoned and speaking order thereto within four weeks from the date of communication of this order, in accordance with law. The parties shall be at liberty to place relevant documents before the concerned authority at the time of hearing.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the detention of a vehicle carrying goods without proper documentation under Sections 68 and 129(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act.

Summary:
The petitioner's consignment of old MS iron scrap was intercepted by the authorities while parked at a compound before complete loading. A penalty was imposed for violating Sections 68 and 129(1) of the Act. The appellate authority upheld the penalty citing absence of e-way bill and tax invoice during transportation.

The petitioner argued that as the vehicle was not in transit and was still being loaded, Sections 68 and 129 should not apply. The e-way bill was generated after interception due to incomplete loading. The State contended that the vehicle was already moving when intercepted, supported by documents showing movement from a different location.

The Court noted new issues raised in the writ petition and ordered a remand to the appellate authority for further review. The authority is directed to determine if the vehicle was in motion during interception, thus falling under Sections 68 and 129. The appellate authority is instructed to reconsider the appeal with a fair hearing for all parties involved.

The judgment clarifies that it does not delve into the case's merits, leaving the appellate authority to independently assess the appeal. No costs are awarded, and the allegations in the writ petition are not deemed admitted without an affidavit. Parties may request a certified copy of the order from the website.