2024 (7) TMI 984 - HC - GST

Levy of penalty for transporting the vehicle in question after expiry of the e-way bill - gap between the expiry of the bill and interception of the vehicle in question is about 18 hrs - the respondents could not make out any case against the petitioners that there was any deliberate or willful intention of the petitioners to avoid and evade the tax and he opposes this writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. HELD THAT - This writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the aforesaid impugned order of the appellate authority and adjudicating authority and as a consequence, petitioners will be entitled to get the refund of the penalty in question subject to compliance of legal formalities. This writ petition stands disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order of appellate authority under WBGST Act confirming penalty for transporting vehicle after expiry of e-way bill.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged the impugned order of the appellate authority under the WBGST Act, which confirmed the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority for transporting a vehicle after the expiry of the e-way bill. The e-way bill had expired on 16.10.2022 at 11.59 P.M., and the vehicle was intercepted at 6.05 P.M. on 17.10.2022, with a time gap of about 18 hours. The petitioners contended that there was no intention to evade tax and cited a previous order of the Court in a similar case. They also mentioned a Division Bench decision in support of their argument.

The advocate for the petitioners highlighted that there was no deliberate intention to avoid tax on the part of the petitioners. He emphasized the genuine problem of a breakdown of the vehicle as the reason for the delay in transportation. On the other hand, the advocate for the respondents failed to establish any deliberate or willful intention on the part of the petitioners to evade tax. The opposition to the writ petition was based on the availability of an alternative remedy.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, along with the two previous orders of the Court cited by the petitioners, the High Court disposed of the writ petition (WPA 9308 of 2024). The impugned order of the appellate authority and adjudicating authority was set aside, and as a consequence, the petitioners were entitled to a refund of the penalty imposed, subject to compliance with legal formalities. The Court concluded the judgment with this observation, thereby concluding the writ petition.