Unifour Ventures P. LTD. vs. Asst. Com. Of State Tax, Bureau Of Invest. N. Bengal Headquarter And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Unifour Ventures Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order of the Appellate Authority under the WBGST Act, which upheld the adjudicating authority's penalty. The penalty was imposed for transporting goods when the e-way bill had expired. The e-way bill expired on May 4, 2023, at 11:59 p.m., and the vehicle was intercepted on May 5, 2023, at 11:45 p.m., resulting in a time gap of approximately 12 hours. The petitioner contended that there was no intention to evade tax and that the vehicle had genuinely broken down. The State opposed the writ petition, primarily on the ground of the availability of an alternative remedy.
Held
The Court held that the penalty imposed was not sustainable. The Court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, including the short time gap between the e-way bill's expiry and the vehicle's interception (approximately 12 hours), and the petitioner's assertion of a genuine vehicle breakdown and lack of intent to evade tax. The Court found that the State could not establish any deliberate or willful intention to evade tax. Relying on previous orders of the Court in similar matters, the Court set aside the impugned orders of the Appellate Authority and the adjudicating authority. The ratio decidendi is that penalties under GST laws should not be imposed where there is no intent to evade tax and the circumstances indicate a genuine issue, such as a vehicle breakdown, leading to a minor delay beyond the e-way bill validity. The petitioner is entitled to a refund of the penalty paid, subject to compliance with legal formalities.
Key Issues
1. Whether the penalty imposed for transporting goods with an expired e-way bill, where the interception occurred less than 24 hours after expiry and the petitioner claims a genuine vehicle breakdown and no intention to evade tax, is sustainable under the WBGST Act? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that there was no intention of tax evasion, citing a genuine vehicle breakdown as the reason for the delay. They relied on several High Court decisions, including Ashok Kumar Sureka v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Durgapur Range, and Ramji Taiswal & Anr. vs. State Tax Officer, to support their claim that penalties should not be imposed in cases of genuine hardship or lack of intent to evade tax. Revenue's contentions: The State's counsel could not establish any deliberate or willful intention on the part of the petitioner to avoid or evade tax. The opposition to the writ petition was solely based on the availability of an alternative remedy.
Sections Cited
WBGST Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2023 Investigation, North Bengal Headquarter & Ors. Mr. Boudhayan Bhattacharyya, Ms. Stuti Bansal, Ms. Taniya Roy … For the Petitioner. Mr. A. Ray, Ld. GP., Mr. T.M. Siddiqui, Mr. T. Chakraborty, Mr. S. Sanyal … For the State. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the Appellate Authority under WBGST Act confirming the order of the adjudicating authority imposing the penalty for transporting the vehicle in question for the reason of expiry of the e-way bill which was expired on 4th May, 2023 at 11.59 p.m. and the vehicle in question was intercepted at 11: 45 p.m. on 5th May, 2023 and there is a time gap between the expiry of the e-bill and interception of the vehicle in question is about 12 hrs. which is less than a day and writ petitioner submits that there was no intention of any evasion of tax on the part of the petitioner and there was a genuine problem of break down of the vehicle in question. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner in support of his contention relies on an order of this 2 court dated March 1, 2022 in WPA No.11085 of 2021 in the case of Ashok Kumar Sureka v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Durgapur Range (2022) 100 GSTR 160(Cal) and also a Division Bench decision of this court dated May 12, 2022 in MAT No.470 of 2022 (Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Durgapur Range, Government of West Bengal v. Ashok Kumar Sureka (2023) 108 GSTR 362(Cal) and decision of this court in the case of Ramji Taiswal & Anr. vs. State Tax Officer(2023) 108 GSTR 366(Cal). The learned Advocate appearing for the respondents could not make out any case against the petitioner that there was any deliberate or willful intention of the petitioner to avoid and evade the tax and he opposes this writ petition only on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case which appears from record and considering the aforesaid orders of this court, this writ petition being WPA 20057 of 2023 is disposed of by setting aside the aforesaid impugned order of the Appellate Authority and adjudicating Authority and as a consequence, petitioner will be entitled to get the refund of the penalty in question subject to compliance any legal formalities if requires under the law. ( Md. Nizamuddin, J. )
3
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.