The 200% penalty has been quashed by the Calcutta High Court and ruled that the e-way bill made for the goods exported to Bangladesh lapsed because of an accident.
Until and unless the council established that the goods transporter or the owner of the goods has intended to violate the provisions of the act, the question of levying the penalty under Section 129 of the WBGST Act is too high does not be justified, as seen by the bench of Chief Justice T. S. Sivagnanam and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya.
The petitioner filed the intra-court petition against the order issued via the Single bench dismissing the writ petition that the petitioner filed contesting the order issued via the council levying the penalties under the provisions of the WBGST act.
The order was contested based on the generated e-way bill via the applicant, the articles transported for export to Bangladesh have lapsed. Thus, on the date and time when the vehicle was seized, the vehicle did not have a valid e-way bill. Accordingly, a penalty in terms of Section 129 of the WBGST Act was charged.
The goods were transported by the appellant in the vehicle, with an e-way bill generated on June 11, 2022. The GST e-way bill was valid up to midnight dated June 13, 2202. On June 14, 2022, the vehicle was seized at about 5.30 p.m.
The GST council found that the e-way bill had lapsed at midnight on June 13, 2022, and a new e-way bill had not been generated. Therefore, it was carried that the goods were transported with no valid e-way bill.
The petitioner elaborated on the lapse on the basis that the vehicle met with the accident and there was a settlement made between the owner of the motorcycle and the owner of the truck that has the goods; it added to the delay in the process, and in any case, dated June 15, 2022, the second GST e-way bill was generated. During that, if the vehicle was seized, barely 24 hours had lapsed from the time during which the 1st e-way bill had lapsed.
The court remarked that it is not a matter in which a penalty can be levied that high 200%. The additional factors that are to be regarded are that the goods have been transported and that the goods in question have been exported to Bangladesh.
| Case Title | M/S Saraf Trexim Limited VS Deputy Commissioner of State Tax and ORS |
| Citation | FMA/256/2023 IA NO: CAN/1/2023 |
| Date | 30.09.2022 |
| Appellant | Mr. Rituraj Chakraborty |
| Respondent for State | Mr. T.M. siddique, Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty, Mr. Saptak Sanyal |
| Calcutta High Court | Read Order |
