Penalty for transporting goods without valid e-way bill upheld despite petitioner's appeal after voluntary payment

HC dismissed petition challenging penalty for invalid e-way bill. Petitioner transported goods without valid e-way bill, paid penalty without objection, and filed formal appeal. Court held penalty was correctly imposed as statutory violation occurred regardless of intention. Citing precedent, court ruled mens rea irrelevant for statutory penalties - violation alone attracts penalty. Authority acted within statutory powers. Petitioner's belated challenge after voluntary payment without raising procedural objections during assessment was rejected. No grounds found for interference.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 129(3) of West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and appellate authority's affirmation.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested the penalty imposed for goods moving without a valid e-way bill, citing a breakdown causing e-way bill expiration near final destination. Allegations of mechanical imposition of penalty and lack of discretion exercised by the authority were raised, emphasizing the absence of deliberate tax evasion intent. The petitioner argued for setting aside penalties, relying on legal precedents like Assistant Commissioner vs. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Limited.

The respondents countered, asserting due opportunity was provided, and penalties were rightfully imposed as the vehicle lacked valid papers. They highlighted the petitioner's failure to object initially and the formal nature of the appeal, questioning the belated objections raised before the High Court.

The Court examined if the respondent authority acted lawfully under Section 129, detaining goods and imposing penalties. The petitioner's compliance with penalty payment without objection and lack of substantial defense during appeal were noted. Relying on legal precedents, the Court emphasized the statutory nature of penalty imposition for contraventions, irrespective of intent.

The Court distinguished the present case from Satyam Shivam, emphasizing the absence of State responsibility for the delay in goods transportation. The petitioner's claim of practical difficulties in e-way bill revalidation was dismissed, emphasizing strict compliance with statutory provisions. The Court highlighted the purpose of opportunity of hearing and the minimal scope for discretion in e-way bill regulations.

Legal judgments like Ashok Kumar Sureka and Ramji Jaiswal were referenced, emphasizing case-specific conclusions and absence of precedential value. The Court reiterated the irrelevance of intent in statutory penalty imposition, emphasizing the authority's obligation to enforce statutory provisions without discretion.

Ultimately, the Court found no grounds to interfere, dismissing the writ petition without costs, citing the petitioner's compliance with penalty payment and lack of substantial defense.

---