Aryavrata Steel PVT. LTD. vs. Inspector Of CGST, Anti-Evasion, Bolpur Commissionerate And Ors.

Facts

This intra-court appeal by Aryavrata Steel Private Limited challenges an order dated 12.07.2023 by the learned Single Bench, which did not grant an interim order but directed an affidavit-in-opposition. The appellant sought to dispose of both the writ petition and the appeal together. The core issue revolves around the imposition of tax and penalty by the CGST authorities on the grounds that the e-way bill had expired when the vehicle carrying goods was intercepted. The appellant contended that the vehicle had reached the factory gate for unloading, but the purchasing company, BDG Metal and Power Limited, had a policy of not allowing entry during nighttime. This was supported by a letter from the purchasing company detailing the date and time of arrival at the factory gate.

Held

The Court allowed the appeal and the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order. The Court found that the appellant had established the bona fide of their claim, supported by a letter from the purchasing company, BDG Metal and Power Limited, which explained the delay in unloading due to their policy of not allowing vehicle entry during nighttime. The Court noted that the department had not doubted the bona fide of the appellant nor indicated that the purchaser's statement was false. Considering the meager delay and the established bona fide, the Court held that imposing tax and penalty on the sole ground of an expired e-way bill was not justified. The Court directed the department to refund any tax and penalty already collected from the appellant within three weeks.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents could impose tax and penalty on the ground that the e-way bill had expired when the vehicle was intercepted, despite the appellant establishing that the vehicle reached the factory gate and the delay was due to the purchaser's policy of not allowing night-time entry? Contentions of the Appellant: The appellant argued that the delay in unloading was due to the consistent practice of the purchasing company, BDG Metal and Power Limited, which does not permit vehicle entry into the factory during nighttime. They submitted a letter from the purchaser corroborating this fact, including the date and time of the vehicle's arrival at the factory gate. The appellant asserted that their bona fide was not doubted by the department and the purchaser's statement was not found to be false or incorrect. Contentions of the Revenue/State: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the CGST authorities regarding this issue.