Vardan Associates PVT.LTD vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax Central Section & Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Vardan Associates Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order dated August 27, 2019, passed by the appellate authority under the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax (WBGST) Act. This order upheld the adjudicating authority's order dated June 27, 2019, which imposed a penalty under Section 129 of the WBGST Act. The penalty was levied on goods intercepted on June 17, 2019, for the period of June 1, 2019, to June 30, 2019. The violation cited was the absence of a valid e-way bill, as the existing e-way bill had expired on June 9, 2019. The petitioner had appealed this penalty to the appellate authority, which dismissed the appeal.

Held

The Court held that there was no procedural irregularity or violation of the principle of natural justice in the actions taken by the authorities. The Court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the nature of goods being transported was exempted from the requirement of an e-way bill under any specific provision of law. Consequently, the Court concluded that the actions of the authorities were not contrary to law, and the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution was not warranted. The Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no grounds to interfere with the appellate authority's order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated August 27, 2019, passed by the appellate authority, upholding the penalty imposed under Section 129 of the WBGST Act, is sustainable in law? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the appellate authority's order was erroneous. They argued that there was a violation of procedural irregularity or principles of natural justice, and the action of the authorities was contrary to law. They also claimed to have shown specific provisions of law exempting the nature of goods from e-way bill requirements. Revenue's Arguments: The respondents (Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and others) argued that the interception and penalty were justified due to the absence of a valid e-way bill at the time of goods' movement, as the e-way bill had expired. They likely defended the orders passed by the adjudicating and appellate authorities.