Pawan Carrying Corporation vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Pawan Carrying Corporation, a transporter, challenged an order of determination and a penalty order under Section 129(3) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017. The petitioner was transporting goods from Kanpur to West Bengal based on an e-invoice and e-way bill. During transit, the original vehicle developed a snag, necessitating transshipment of goods to another vehicle. The petitioner claims to have updated the e-way bill with the new vehicle's registration number on the portal before its expiry. However, the generated e-way bill incorrectly reflected the original vehicle's number. The vehicle was intercepted by respondent No. 3 on February 23, 2025, leading to the impugned orders.
Held
The Court held that the case involved factual issues requiring detailed inquiry, particularly concerning the petitioner's claim of filling in all particulars for the transshipped vehicle on the portal. The Court noted that the person who allegedly uploaded the particulars had not filed an affidavit to support this claim. Given the e-way bill as disclosed in the petition, the Court found it difficult to accept the petitioner's contention without a detailed factual inquiry. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to admit the writ petition, especially when an efficacious alternative remedy was available. The Court directed that if the petitioner prefers an appeal, the appellate authority should consider the case on merits, including the glitches identified by the petitioner on the portal. The writ petition was dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order of determination and penalty under Section 129(3) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017, passed by respondent No. 3, is perverse, considering the petitioner's claim of a technical error on the e-way bill portal regarding the transshipped vehicle's registration number? (Mixed question of law and fact) 2. Whether the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the proper officer's findings were perverse. They argued that they had uploaded the correct registration number of the transshipped vehicle (UP 71 BT 6157) on the portal, but it failed to register, and the e-way bill erroneously showed the original vehicle's number (UP 78 JT 5955). They emphasized that the extension of the e-way bill was made within its validity period, and all other particulars matched the e-invoice and intercepted goods. They sought setting aside of the order and release of the vehicle and goods. State's arguments: The State argued that the e-way bill did not reflect the transshipment by a different vehicle, only an extension of validity. They contended that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy in the form of an appeal and urged the Court not to entertain the writ petition.
Sections Cited
Section 129(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025
sayandeep Sl. No. 07 Ct. No. 05
WPA 7429 of 2025
Pawan Carrying Corporation Vs. The State of West Bengal & ors.
Mr. D.V.Pathy, Sr. Advocate Mr. Anada Sen Mr. Hiresh Karan Ms. Shivani Dewalla Mr. Sabyasachi Mondal
…. for the petitioner
Mr. T.M. Siddiqui, Ld.A.G.P.
Mr. N. Chatterjee
Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty
Mr. S. Sanyal
… for the State
Challenging the order of determination dated 25th February, 2025 issued by the respondent No. 3 and the show-cause notice dated 4th March, 2025, the order dated 11th March, 2025 passed by the respondent No. 3 imposing penalty under Section 129(3) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the instant writ petition has been filed.
The petitioner is a transporter and is engaged in the business of transportation of goods.
The learned senior advocate representing the writ petitioner would submit that the petitioner for the purpose of transporting goods from Kanpur to Ukilpara (wrongly mentioned as Ulkipara), West Bengal was issued a consignment note by the consigner, namely, Maa Vindhya Vashni Tobaco P.
2 Ltd., Kanpur to be delivered to Urmila Enterprises, Ukilpara, West Bengal. The Consigner of the goods also issued and generated an e-invoice on 8th February, 2025. It is on the basis of the e-invoices that the consigner of the goods also issued an e-way bill. The description of the consigner, consignee, the respective tax identification nos. and the description of goods with applicable rate of taxes are all mentioned in the e-invoice and e-way bill.
On the basis of aforesaid, the petitioner had thereafter generated an e-way bill on 14th February, 2025. The transport vehicle (truck) had commenced its journey of transporting the goods on the basis of the e-way bill and the e-invoice and had crossed Baduri-check post in Uttar Pradesh on 17th February, 2025 at 23:24:47 hrs. After crossing the aforesaid post, the transport vehicle bearing registration No. UP 78 JT 5955 reached Azamgarh, UP on 19th February, 2025 where the said transport vehicle developed a snag and became inoperational. The factum of the transport vehicle having become inoperational was reported by the driver whereupon the petitioner had taken steps to transship the goods to another vehicle and accordingly the petitioner had requested a transport agent, namely, Sh. Mayank Shukla, to arrange a transport vehicle to carry goods from Azamgarh to the place of its destination at West Bengal. Accordingly, a transport truck bearing No. UP 71 BT 6157 was
3 involved in the transshipment and the petitioner had accordingly prior to the expiry of the e-way bill on 20th February, 2025 had extended the same till 24th February, 2025. While extending such e-way bill, the petitioner had filled in the registration number of the other transport vehicle bearing No. UP 71 BT 6157 on the portal. Unfortunately, when the e-way bill was generated, the petitioner noticed that the number of transport vehicle being UP 71 BT 6157 did not find place rather the number of the earlier truck bearing No. UP 78 JT 5955 was mentioned. Later on 23rd February, 2025 at around 4:12 a.m., the respondent No. 3 had intercepted the transport vehicle and had also recorded the statement of the petitioner’s driver.
Upon completion of physical verification inspection of the conveyance and after issuance of the show-cause, a final order under Section 129(3) of the said Act was passed.
Mr. Pathy, learned senior advocate/representing the petitioner by drawing attention of this Court to the order dated 11th March, 2025 would submit that the findings rendered by the proper Officer is perverse. According to him, the petitioner had actually uploaded the number of the transshipped vehicle being No. UP 71 BT 6157 on the portal, however, the same did not register on the portal. He has also drawn attention of this Court to the e-way bill to highlight the fact that the extension was made within the validity of the e-
4 way bill and the interception was also within the validity of the e-way bill. The petitioner had no role in the e-way bill not reflecting the number of the transshipped vehicle and all particulars of all invoice numbers of the intercepted goods matches with the e- way invoice and the goods which have been intercepted. In the facts noted above, the order dated 11th March, 2025 should be set aside, the vehicle and the goods be released.
Mr. Siddiqui, learned senior advocate and additional Government Pleader appears on behalf of the respondents. He would submit that in the instant case the e-way bill does not reflect that the same was being transshipped by a different vehicle. The e-way bill only records that the validity of the e-way bill has been extended. According to him, the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy in the form of an appeal. In such circumstances, this Court may be pleased not to entertain the writ petition.
Having heard the respective parties and having considered the materials on record, I find that in the instant case, the petitioner claims that it was transporting goods from Kanpur to West Bengal under a valid e-invoice as also a valid e-way bill. It is petitioner’s case that the e-way bill was due to expire on 20th February, 2025, however, prior to its expiry, the petitioner had duly extended the validity of the e- way bill.
5
Mr. Pathy, learned senior advocate representing the petitioner would submit that the aforesaid extension was necessitated since the vehicle in question through which the goods were being transported developed a snag which requires the goods to be transshipped through another vehicle. Although the petitioner had duly filled up all data as regards the transshipped vehicle and uploaded the same on the portal, the print out of the e–way bill, however, demonstrated that the registration number of the transshipped vehicle did not reflect on the e-way bill and that the e-way bill recorded the registration number of the original vehicle. He would submit that reasons for extension also do not appear from the aforesaid e-way bill, which according to him is a technical error. Accordingly to him, the portal also does not support reflection of the transshipped vehicle number which fact has, however, been denied by Mr. Siddiqui, learned advocate representing the respondents.
In this context, I may note that the case made out by the petitioner in paragraph 10 of the writ petition would require detailed enquiry on factual issues. Though a claim has been made that the petitioner had filled up all particulars, however, having regard to the e-way bill which has been disclosed in the petition, I am of the view that the it would be difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner without this Court entering into a detailed enquiry on factual basis,
6 especially, in view of the fact that the person who had uploaded and filled up the particulars on the portal as pointed out by Mr. Pathy, learned Senior advocate representing the petitioner, was Mr. Dipendra Kumar, and that he had not come forward to affirm any affidavit to that effect. Having regard thereto, I am not inclined to admit the writ petition especially when there is an efficacious alternative remedy available.
At this stage, learned senior advocate representing the petitioner would submit that in the event, the petitioner prefers an appeal, appropriate direction should be issued on the appellate authority to consider the case of the petitioner on merits including but not limited to glitches as identified by the petitioner on the portal. Having regard to the submissions made by the petitioner, I am of the view that the appellate authority who is otherwise competent enough shall be obliged to consider all questions as raised by the petitioner and dispose of the appeal, if the same is filed in accordance with law.
Considering the fact that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy in the form of an appeal, I am of the view that there is no scope to entertain the petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed without any order as to costs.
(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.