Steel Crackers Private Limited vs. State Tax Officer, Bureau Of Investigation Unit-2 & Ors
Facts
The petitioner, Steel Crackers Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order dated May 15, 2019, by the appellate authority, which upheld an order dated December 20, 2018, passed by the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty under Section 129 of the WBGST Act. The charges against the petitioner, admitted by them, included not having the invoice or delivery challan with the goods in movement, presenting an e-way bill that did not match the e-way bill system records for the vehicle, the e-way bill copy lacking the intercepted vehicle's number, and a discrepancy in the quantity of goods mentioned in the e-way bill compared to the physically verified quantity. The petitioner's appeal to the appellate authority was dismissed, leading to this writ petition.
Held
The Court held that the appellate authority's order dated May 15, 2019, was a reasoned and speaking order. It was passed after affording the petitioner an opportunity for personal hearing and was found not to be contrary to any statutory provision. The Court also found no procedural irregularity in either the adjudication or the appellate proceedings. The appellate order was described as well-reasoned, with detailed discussions of facts, law, and submissions. Consequently, the Court found no reason to interfere with the reasoning and findings of the appellate authority. The writ petition was dismissed based on these findings.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellate authority's order dated May 15, 2019, confirming the penalty imposed under Section 129 of the WBGST Act, is legally sustainable, considering the admitted charges against the petitioner. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner has not put forth any specific arguments in the provided text. The judgment notes that all charges against the petitioner have been admitted and there is no denial of the same. Revenue/State's arguments: The State has not put forth any specific arguments in the provided text. The judgment focuses on the petitioner's admissions and the reasoning of the appellate authority.
Sections Cited
Section 129
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2023 Investigation, Unit-2, & Ors. Mr. Anil Kumar Dugar, Mr. R. Chatterjee, Mr. Gobinda Dey. … For the Petitioner. 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 dated 15th May, 2019, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and confirming the order of the adjudicating authority dated 20th December, 2018, imposing penalty under the provision of Section 129 of the WBGST Act. I have perused both the aforesaid orders of the adjudicating authority as well as the appellate authority from which it appears all the charges against the petitioner have been admitted and there is no denial of the same by the petitioner. Following charges as recorded by the 2 adjudicating authority in the order dated 20th December, 2018, which are quoted hereunder:- “a) The invoice or bill of supply or delivery challan was not with the g
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.