Rumki Biswas vs. Sr. Jt. Com. Com. Taxes, Budge Budge Ch. And Anr.

Held

The Court held that the circumstances, including the cancellation of Part A and generation of a new Part A, followed by the driver carrying Part B of the cancelled e-way bill, did not prima facie appear to be an intention to evade payment of duty. The Court considered it a possible bona fide error. The Court noted that the appellate authority's order was lengthy and that the appellant had contributed to this by relying on various High Court decisions, which were not necessary for a fact-based determination. The Court found that the appellate authority had not adequately dealt with the aspect of the appellant's bona fides and the absence of intent to evade duty. Therefore, the Court was inclined to remand the matter back to the appellate authority for a fresh consideration, focusing on the conduct of the appellant and the wilful intention to evade payment of duty. The order of the appellate authority was set aside, and the matter was remanded.

Facts

The appellant, Rumki Biswas, filed an intra-Court appeal against an order of a learned Single Bench that declined to grant an interim order. The appellant's challenge was to an order dated 5th June 2022 by the Senior Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Budge Budge Charge, which affirmed an earlier order dated 30th March 2022. The original order imposed a 200% penalty on the appellant for allegedly violating Rule 138 of the WBGST/CGST Rules, 2017. The appellant's case was that they generated Part A of an e-way bill on 22nd March 2022 and Part B on 24th March 2022. Due to loading issues, Part A was cancelled, and a new Part A was generated on 24th March 2022. When intercepted, the driver had Part B of an e-way bill for which Part A had been cancelled.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of Part A of an e-way bill and generation of a new Part A, coupled with the driver carrying Part B of the cancelled e-way bill, constitutes an intention to evade payment of duty under the relevant provisions of the WBGST/CGST Rules, 2017, specifically concerning Rule 138. The appellant argued that the subsequent generation of a fresh Part B within two hours of detention clearly demonstrated a lack of intention to evade duty, suggesting a bona fide error. The appellant contended that the appellate authority's lengthy order was unnecessary and that the core issue was the absence of wilful intent to evade tax. The State, represented by the Senior Joint Commissioner, argued that the violation of e-way bill provisions, as evidenced by the discrepancy in the e-way bill documents, indicated an intent to evade duty, justifying the penalty imposed.