9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 528X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the legal consequences, did not raise objection and paid the penalty that was imposed. The appeal filed was also very formal and the petitioner was unable to rebut the charge of transporting goods without a valid e-way bill - From the documents available before the Court it does not appear that the petitioner genuinely intended to contest the charge brought against her. On the contrary, the petitioner without any objection deposited the penalty amount. It seems that the petitioner is raising all the issues for the first time before the High Court in the present proceeding. The practice and procedure to obtain way bill electronically from the portal suggests that there is minimal manual interference and there is no scope to exercise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -way bill attracts penalty. The authority assessed the penalty amount and the petitioner deposited the same without a murmur. There is hardly any reason to interfere in the instant proceeding - Petition dismissed. - HON BLE JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA For the writ Petitioner :- Mr. Boudhayan Bhattacharyya, Adv. Mr. Sougata Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Biswajit Basak, Adv. Ms. Stuti Bansal, Adv. For the Union of India :- Mr. Sourab Kar, Adv. For the State :- Mr. Bikramaditya Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Hirak Barman, Adv. For the Respondent no. 4 :- Mr. Ratan Banik, Adv. JUDGMENT AMRITA SINHA, J.:- The petitioner challenges the order passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 129(3) of the West Bengal Goods and Servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of routinely imposing penalty directing payment of amount equal to two hundred percent of the tax payable on the goods transported. Reasonable opportunity of hearing was not granted to the petitioner prior to passing the order of penalty at the adjudicating stage or before the appellate forum. The purpose of providing opportunity of hearing to the concerned person has been rendered otiose as the penalty was imposed mechanically in a predetermined manner. It has been argued that the issue whether penalty can be imposed if the goods are transported without a valid e-way bill is no longer res integra and has been conclusively decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (ST) and others vs- Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction for the first time, more so, after everything is over. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Guljag Industries vs. Commercial Tax Officer; (2007) 7 SCC 269 and the judgment delivered by this Court on 6th February, 2023 in WPA 190 of 2023 in Ashok and Sons (HUF) vs- Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Office of the Senior Joint Commissioner, Siliguri Circle Ors. Respondents pray for dismissal of the writ petition. I have heard and considered the rival contentions of both the parties. The petitioner admits that when the vehicle was intercepted, the e-way bill was invalid. The petitioner, being aware of the legal consequences, did not raise objection and paid the penalty that was imposed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stination. It has been claimed that there was bona fide reason for not reaching the end point within the validity period of the e-way bill. The ground for delay in transportation was absolutely beyond the control of the petitioner. It appears from records that the petitioner, without much ado, paid the penalty. The appeal against the order of the adjudicating authority also does not speak much. The petitioner got inspired to contest the proceeding before the High Court relying upon the judgment delivered by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Satyam Shivam (supra). In Satyam Shivam (supra) the Hon ble Supreme Court was deciding a case where the goods got stranded and e-way bill expired because the State was unable to provide smooth passa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was hardly twenty kilometres away from the end point the e-way bill could not be revalidated within such short period of time. Learned advocate has tried to convince the Court that though there is provision in the Act for revalidation of an expired e-way bill within eight hours, but practically the same is very difficult to do. The petitioner suggests that the authority ought to have exercised discretion to conclude whether penalty could be levied or not. The Court is not at all agreeable to the said proposition. As long as the provision to revalidate the e-way bill remains in the rule book, the same is required to be strictly complied despite the fact that the same may be practically difficult to implement. The practice and procedure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
