2022 (7) TMI 1325 - HC - GST

Transporting Goods Without E-Way Bill Results in GST Penalty Despite Claims of Timely Generation

M/s. KD Gupta & Company & Anr. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Barrackpore Range, Directorate Of Commercial Taxes & Ors.

The HC upheld a penalty under WBGST Act against the petitioner for transporting goods without an e-way bill. The petitioner claimed to have generated the ... Levy of penalty under WBGST Act - transporting the goods in question without any e-way bill - e-way bill generated within two hours after the detention of goods in question - HELD THAT:- From the statement of facts filed before the appellate authority it appears that petitioner had filed the e-way bill on the next day of detention of the goods. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and what appears from record, no interim order is required against the impugned coercive action taken by the respondents. There is no scope of passing any interim order in the matter and the issues involved require affidavits from the respondents for final adjudication. Let the respondents file affidavit in opposition within four weeks; reply thereto, if any, to be filed by the petitioner within two weeks thereafter. List the matter for final hearing seven weeks hence. Issues Involved:Challenge to impugned order confirming penalty under WBGST Act for transporting goods without e-way bill.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the impugned order of the appellate authority, which upheld the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority for transporting goods without an e-way bill. The petitioner failed to produce the e-way bill at the time of interception, only generating it two hours later. However, when asked to provide proof of generating the e-way bill within two hours, the petitioner could not substantiate the claim. The appellate authority noted that the e-way bill was filed the day after the detention of goods, contrary to the petitioner's assertion. Consequently, the court declined to pass an interim order against the coercive action taken by the respondents.Analysis:The court, considering the submissions of the petitioner, determined that no interim order could be issued at this stage. The issues involved necessitated affidavits from the respondents for a final adjudication. Accordingly, the court directed the respondents to file an affidavit in opposition within four weeks, with the petitioner required to respond within two weeks thereafter. The matter was listed for a final hearing seven weeks later, with both parties instructed to prepare short written notes of argument for the hearing.