Penalty upheld for transporting goods with expired e-way bill despite valid reasons for delay

The HC dismissed the petition challenging penalty for transporting goods with an expired e-way bill. Petitioner argued they were not responsible for delay in gate pass issuance at Cooch Behar causing transportation delay. The court held that regardless of valid reasons or lack of tax evasion intent, law mandates valid e-way bills for goods transportation beyond specified distances. The duty lies with owner/transporter to track consignments and ensure legal compliance, including generating fresh e-way bills when delivery cannot occur within stipulated timeframes. Section 129's non obstante clause makes compliance mandatory, and authorities need not consider reasons for invalid documentation during interception.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to penalty for transporting goods against an expired e-way bill.

Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner transported goods against an e-way bill generated on 23rd April, 2022, but faced delays at the Cooch Behar check post, resulting in the e-way bill expiring on 30th April, 2022. Despite producing necessary documents, the check post authority delayed issuing a gate pass until 2nd May, 2022. Subsequently, the vehicle was intercepted, and it was found without a valid e-way bill, leading to the imposition of a penalty under Section 129 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the delay in issuing the gate pass was not their fault and that they had no intention to evade tax as they had paid it initially.

The respondent authority contended that transporting goods without a valid e-way bill is impermissible in law, and penalty was rightly imposed as per Section 129 of the Act. They emphasized that the transporter's intention to evade tax is irrelevant if goods are transported without a valid e-way bill. The authority cited provisions allowing for the generation of a fresh e-way bill if goods cannot be transported within the original validity period.

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner did not have a valid e-way bill when intercepted, emphasizing the legal requirement to transport goods with a valid e-way bill within the stipulated time. The Court highlighted the mandatory nature of furnishing electronic information about goods and transporting them within the e-way bill's validity period. It stressed that there is no provision to transport goods with an expired e-way bill. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the delay in transportation was not their fault, holding them responsible for transporting goods without a valid e-way bill.

The Court distinguished previous judgments cited by the petitioner, stating that they were passed in specific circumstances and cannot be treated as precedent. It upheld the appellate authority's reasoned decision and dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the law regarding transportation of goods with a valid e-way bill. The Court concluded that no relief could be granted to the petitioner in this case.

In summary, the Court upheld the penalty imposed on the petitioner for transporting goods against an expired e-way bill, emphasizing the importance of complying with the legal requirement of a valid e-way bill for transporting goods and dismissing the petitioner's arguments regarding the delay in issuance of the gate pass.

---