2023 (6) TMI 937 - HC - GST

E-Way Bill Dispute Resolved: Timely Revalidation Protects Transporter's Rights Under Procedural Flexibility of Taxation Rules

Sunil Yadav Versus Assistant Commissioner, Bureau of Investigation (North Bengal) Headquarters And Ors.

HC ruled in favor of petitioner regarding e-way bill interception. Vehicle was detained due to expired bill, but court found interception timing allowed ... Refund of penalty amount deposited in view of the subsequent decision of High Court - Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - levy of penalty - expired E-way bill - HELD THAT:- The Appellate Authority after considering the petitioner’s case in details, by an order dated 6th March, 2023 rejected the petitioner’s contention and upheld the order of imposition of penalty. The judgment and order in PUSHPA DEVI JAIN VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, NORTH BENGAL HEADQUARTERS & ORS. [2023 (3) TMI 1375 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] has been delivered subsequent to passing of the order dated 6th March, 2023 by the Appellate Authority. Although, the application of a judgment is prospective unless specifically made applicable retrospectively but the judgment and order of the Hon’ble Division Bench is available before me at the time of adjudicating the writ petition. The ratio Puspha Devi therefor, becomes applicable. The petitioner is entitled to apply for refund which shall be considered by the appropriate authority within a period of 21 days from the date on which such application is made and refund be effected, if there are no other legal impediment. Petition disposed off. Issues:The judgment involves the interception of a vehicle carrying goods covered by e-way bills, the expiration of the e-way bill, the timing of interception, the entitlement to revalidate the e-way bill, the application of a previous judgment, the imposition of penalty, and the subsequent release of the vehicle and consignment.Interception and E-way Bill:The petitioner's vehicle was intercepted due to an expired e-way bill, with a dispute over the timing of interception. The petitioner claimed the interception occurred earlier than stated by the revenue, allowing for revalidation of the e-way bill within 8 hours, especially considering it was a Saturday. Citing a previous judgment with similar circumstances, the petitioner sought a refund of the penalty upon release of the vehicle and consignment.Revenue's Submission and Appellate Authority:The Revenue argued that the vehicle was detained due to the absence of a valid e-way bill at the time of interception. The Appellate Authority rejected the petitioner's contentions and upheld the penalty before the subsequent judgment was delivered. However, the Court considered the retrospective application of the judgment and decided to grant the petitioner the same benefit as in the previous case.Judgment and Refund:The Court, aligning with the precedent set in the previous judgment, set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Authority. The petitioner was granted the right to apply for a refund within 21 days, subject to any legal impediments, based on the circumstances of the case. The writ petition was disposed of with specific directions for all parties to act on a server copy of the order.