The Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in [Maxxcab Wires & Cables (P.) Ltd. v. The State of West Bengal WPA NO. 9308 OF 2024 dated April 9, 2024] held that when an assessee transports a vehicle after the expiry of the e-way bill, but without any deliberate or wilful intention to evade tax, the penalty imposed on the assessee should be set aside. In this case, there was a gap of about 18 hours between the expiry of the e-way bill and the interception of the vehicle, which was less than a day.
Facts of the Case:
(The Petitioner) Maxxcab Wires & Cables (P.) Ltd. had challenged the order imposing a penalty for transporting a vehicle after the expiry of the e-way bill. The facts of the case were as follows:
The e-way bill for the transportation of goods had expired on October 16, 2022, at 11:59 PM.
The vehicle carrying the goods was intercepted by the authorities on October 17, 2022, at 6:05 PM.
There was a gap of about 18 hours between the expiry of the e-way bill and the interception of the vehicle, which was less than a day.
(The Petitioner) contended that there was no intention to evade tax on their part and that there was a genuine problem of a breakdown of the vehicle, which led to the delay in transportation.
Aggrieved by the order imposing the penalty, (the Petitioner) filed the instant writ petition challenging the order of the appellate authority under the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (WBGST Act), which had confirmed the order of the adjudicating authority imposing the penalty.
Issue:
Whether the penalty imposed on (the Petitioner) for transporting the vehicle after the expiry of the e-way bill should be set aside.
Held by the Court:
The Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta, in the WPA NO. 9308 OF 2024 , held as follows:
The court observed that (the Respondent) State of West Bengal could not make out any case against (the Petitioner) that there was any deliberate or wilful intention on the part of (the Petitioner) to avoid and evade tax.
The court relied on its previous orders dated March 1, 2022, in WPA No. 11085 of 2021 (Ashok Kumar Sureka v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Durgapur Range), and dated May 12, 2022, in MAT No. 470 of 2022.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the reliance placed on the aforementioned orders, the court set aside the impugned order of the appellate authority under the WBGST Act, confirming the order of the adjudicating authority imposing the penalty on (the Petitioner).
As a consequence, the court held that (the Petitioner) would be entitled to a refund of the penalty in question, subject to the compliance of legal formalities.
Relevant Sections
Section 129. Detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any person transports any goods or stores any goods while they are in transit in contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, all such goods and conveyance used as a means of transport for carrying the said goods and documents relating to such goods and conveyance shall be liable to detention or seizure and after detention or seizure, shall be released,-
1[(a) on payment of penalty equal to two hundred per cent. of the tax payable on such goods and, in case of exempted goods, on payment of an amount equal to two per cent. of the value of goods or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less, where the owner of the goods comes forward for payment of such penalty;
(b) on payment of penalty equal to fifty per cent. of the value of the goods or two hundred per cent. of the tax payable on such goods, whichever is higher, and in case of exempted goods, on payment of an amount equal to five per cent. of the value of goods or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less, where the owner of the goods does not come forward for payment of such penalty;]
(c) upon furnishing a security equivalent to the amount payable under clause (a) or clause (b) in such form and manner as may be prescribed:
Provided that no such goods or conveyance shall be detained or seized without serving an order of detention or seizure on the person transporting the goods.
______________________________________________________________________
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and NLF Tax and Legal Advisory. The contents of this article are solely for informational purposes and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or a recommendation of the firm. Neither the author nor the firm and its affiliates accept any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing, and we reserve the legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
Comentários