Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (9) TMI 1470

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he e-waybills was not complied with immediately. It also appears from the aforesaid order that this Court taking note of the factum of non-disclosure of cogent reasons in the impugned order and the same being a non-speaking order and also being harsh, in the facts of the said case had modified the order of penalty to Rs. 50,000/-. Having regard to the aforesaid and taking note of the disclosure made in the writ petition, it is very difficult to conclude that the Court had passed the order by overlooking the factum of non-updation of the Part-B of the fourth e-waybill. There is no reason to conclude that the Court being oblivious of such statement had passed the order - Review dismissed. - HON BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY For the Petiti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d proceeding on the premise that Part-B of the e-waybills in question had been updated within 2 minutes of interception of the vehicle in question, and accordingly was prompted to consider the order determining imposition of penalty of Rs. 8,71,074/- as harsh and had thereby, taking note of such fact felt that the imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- would be justified. He would, however, submit the basic foundation for passing such an order was on a wrong premise as admittedly in this case, out of the four e-waybills, only part B of three e-waybills had been updated. In fact, the fourth e-waybill had not been updated at all. Unfortunately, the order as noted above proceeds on the premise that Part-B of all the four e-waybills in question .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... raneous letter dated 25th July, 2023 had brought the factum of non-updation of the fourth e-waybill to the knowledge of the Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, Howrah Zone, and detailed explanation had been given in connection with non-updation of the fourth e-waybill. In the writ petition, appropriate explanation as regards non-updation of the fourth e-waybill was detailed in paragraph 8 thereof, which was a mirror reflection of the earlier stand taken by the petitioners in their communication dated 25th July, 2023. By referring to the judgment and order dated 29th November, 2023, she submits that the Court was conscious of the circumstances as regards non-updation of the fourth e-waybill. Such fact would corroborate from the second page of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. 7. Upon perusal of the aforesaid order it appears that the issue in the original writ petition revolved around imposition of penalty for non-updation of the four e-waybills by the petitioners which ultimately culminated in the order dated 30th July, 2023 passed in GST MOV-09 and Form GST DRC-07 whereby, a penalty of Rs. 8,71,074/- was imposed. 8. I find that it is the contention of the petitioners as it reflected in the paragraph 8 of the writ petition that the conveyance along with the goods in question was waiting outside the godown of the transporter, awaiting for updation of Part-B of the e-waybills and goods were being shifted to the conveyance bearing .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... liance on the judgement of S.Nagaraj Ors. (supra) to drive home the point that the review is always permissible when there is apparent mistake in the order. I find that in the aforesaid judgment the Hon ble Supreme Court had elaborately dealt with the aforesaid issue in paragraph 18 thereof and has specifically held that the power to review flows from the anxiety to avoid injustice. Similarly, in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal (supra), I find that the Hon ble Supreme Court in Paragraph 16.2 thereof had observed that when circumstances of substantial and compelling character make it necessary to review, a review can be granted. I do not find in the facts of the case that any injustice has been caused to the respondents. There appears to be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates