Ifabex Technologies vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, IFABEX Technologies, approached the High Court challenging an order under Section 129(3) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, dated July 18, 2024. The petitioner claimed to have paid a portion of the penalty, amounting to Rs. 11,00,000/-, although the receipt was issued in the name of Sibu Das. The respondents provided several documents to the petitioner, including MOV 1, MOV 2, DRC 01, MOV 5, and MOV 9. The Court noted that the order under challenge was not issued in the petitioner's name and that a portion of the penalty had been paid.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner, IFABEX Technologies, shall have the liberty to file an appeal against the order dated July 18, 2024, under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. Leave was granted to the petitioner to file the appeal manually, considering that the order was not issued in the petitioner's name and a portion of the penalty had been paid. The respondents were directed to assist the petitioner in filing the appeal. The Court explicitly stated that it had not gone into the merits of the order passed under Section 129(3) of the said Act. Therefore, it would be open to the appellate authority to decide all points raised by the petitioner on merits. The Court also agreed with the State's submission that the issue concerning the validity of the e-way bill should be left to the appellate authority to decide.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to file an appeal against the order dated July 18, 2024, under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, despite the order not being issued in its name? 2. Whether the validity of the e-way bill generated by the petitioner at the time of vehicle detention should be decided by the High Court or left to the appellate authority? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that they should be allowed to file an appeal against the order dated July 18, 2024, under Section 107 of the said Act, and sought leave to file it manually. They also claimed to have paid a significant portion of the penalty. Revenue's arguments: The State submitted that the issue regarding the validity of the e-way bill, which was previously directed by the Court to be ascertained, should be left to the appellate authority to decide.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 129(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025
sayandeep Sl. No. 02 Ct. No. 05
WPA 1473 of 2025
IFABEX Technologies Vs. State of West Bengal & ors.
Ms. Sweta Mukherjee
…. for the petitioner
Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. GP
Mr. T. M. Siddiqui, Sr. Advocate
Mr. N.Chatterjee
Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty
Mr. S. Sanyal
….for the State
The affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be taken on record.
Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate representing the respondents in course of hearing has made over the following documents to the petitioner which are noted hereinbelow: MOV 1 dated 3rd July, 2024 MOV 2 dated 3rd July, 2024 DRC 01 dated 18th July, 2024 MOV 5 dated 22nd July, 2024 MOV 9 dated 18th July, 2024
Since, the aforesaid documents have been made over to the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner having regard to the provisions contained in Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) shall have the liberty to file an appeal. At the same time, noting the fact that the aforesaid order under Section 129(3) of the said Act dated 18th July, 2024 has not been issued in the name of the petitioner and upon hearing Ms. Mukherjee, learned advocate representing the
2 petitioner, leave is granted to the petitioner to file the appeal manually.
The respondents are directed to assist the petitioner in filing such appeal. The aforesaid order is being passed on the premise and the claim made by the petitioner that a portion of the penalty has been paid by the petitioner to the extent of Rs.11,00,000/- though the receipt thereof, has been issued in the name of Sibu Das.
Since this Court has not gone into the merits of the order passed under Section 129(3) of the said Act dated 18th July, 2024, it shall be open to the appellate authority to decide all points raised by the petitioner on merits.
Mr. Chakraborty would however, submit that though by order dated 30th April, 2025, this Court had directed the respondents to ascertain whether the e- way bill for movement of goods generated by the petitioner at the time of detention of the vehicle in question was valid, according to him the aforesaid issue is best to be left to the appellate authority to decide.
The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.