GST transit detention and penalty upheld where required documents were absent at interception and later explanations failed to dispel doubt.

In a transit interception under the GST regime, the Court noted that the prescribed documents must accompany the goods during movement, and later production of papers did not cure the initial failure to produce them at interception. It found that section 129 of the West Bengal GST Act, 2017 permits detention and computation of tax and penalty where the authorities retain bona fide doubt about the transaction, ownership, or claimed job-work arrangement, and the petitioner did not displace that doubt with sufficient material. The writ challenge on alternative remedy was not treated as an absolute bar because it was framed as a jurisdictional issue, but the demand was upheld on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed under section 129 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was liable to be set aside on the ground that the goods were covered by an e-way bill and the subsequent production of documents cured the alleged defect, and whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy.

Analysis: The goods were intercepted in transit and the authorities found that the documents required to accompany the conveyance were not produced at the time of interception. The Court noted that rule 138A of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 requires the prescribed documents to accompany the goods during movement, and that the petitioner failed to produce materials sufficient to dispel the Revenue's doubt regarding the nature of the transaction, ownership of the goods, and the claimed job-work arrangement. The Court held that section 129 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 authorises detention and computation of tax and penalty in such circumstances, and that the impugned order was a reasoned order passed after affording a further opportunity of hearing. The objection based on alternative remedy was not accepted as an absolute bar because the challenge was framed as one of jurisdiction, but on merits the petitioner failed to establish any illegality in the demand.

Conclusion: The challenge to the penalty failed, and the demand under section 129 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was upheld in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned adjudication imposing penalty remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a transit interception case under the GST regime, the person in charge must produce the prescribed documents at the time of movement, and failure to do so can justify detention and penalty under section 129, even if later explanations or documents are tendered, unless the assessee successfully displaces the Revenue's bona fide doubts with clear supporting material.

---