2024 (9) TMI 1470 - HC - GST

E-waybill penalty review dismissed despite Part-B updation delays within two minutes of interception

State Tax Officer Goods & Services Tax, Bureau of Investigation South Bengal Howrah Zone & Ors. Versus Relay Express Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (vice versa)

The Calcutta HC dismissed a review petition challenging penalty imposition for non-updation of four e-waybills. The court noted that a coordinate bench ... Review petition - Imposition of penalty - non-updation of the four e-waybills by the petitioners - HELD THAT:- The Coordinate Bench of this Court by its order dated 29th November, 2023 [2023 (11) TMI 1293 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] had not only taken note of the factum of e-waybills being updated within two minutes of interception but had also taken note that by reasons of genuine difficulty, updating of part-B of the e-waybills was not complied with immediately. It also appears from the aforesaid order that this Court taking note of the factum of non-disclosure of cogent reasons in the impugned order and the same being a non-speaking order and also being harsh, in the facts of the said case had modified the order of penalty to Rs. 50,000/-. Having regard to the aforesaid and taking note of the disclosure made in the writ petition, it is very difficult to conclude that the Court had passed the order by overlooking the factum of non-updation of the Part-B of the fourth e-waybill. There is no reason to conclude that the Court being oblivious of such statement had passed the order - Review dismissed. Issues:Review of a judgment based on alleged error in the original order regarding penalty imposition for non-updation of e-waybills.Analysis:The High Court granted leave to the writ petitioner to correct the prayer portion in the case. The State respondents filed a review petition seeking to rectify an alleged error in the judgment dated 29th November, 2023, related to the imposition of a penalty. The State argued that the original judgment was based on a mistaken premise that all e-waybills were updated, while in reality, one e-waybill was not updated at all. They cited the case of S. Nagaraj & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. to support their argument that a review is permissible to rectify such errors to avoid injustice. However, the petitioner contended that there was no error on record as the Court was aware of the non-updation of the fourth e-waybill, which was communicated to the authorities promptly. The Court had considered this fact while imposing a reduced penalty of Rs. 50,000. The petitioner also argued that the State respondents should have filed an appeal if they were aggrieved by the original judgment instead of seeking a review.The Court examined the original order and found that the issue revolved around the imposition of a penalty for non-updation of e-waybills by the petitioners. The petitioners explained in detail the circumstances leading to the non-updation of one e-waybill, which was corroborated by a letter dated 25th July, 2023. The Court noted that the original judgment had considered the genuine difficulty faced by the petitioners in updating the e-waybills and had modified the penalty accordingly. The Court referred to legal precedents to emphasize that a review is permissible only in cases of substantial and compelling circumstances necessitating a change in the original judgment. In this case, the Court found that there was no injustice caused to the respondents, and the explanation provided by the petitioners regarding the non-updation of the e-waybill was sufficient. Therefore, the Court dismissed the review petition and the connected application, stating that no interference was warranted. The Court also directed the release of a bank guarantee held by the State respondents in light of the dismissal of the review petition.In conclusion, the Court held that the review petition lacked merit as there was no substantial reason to overturn the original judgment. The Court emphasized that the legal principles cited by the State did not apply to the facts of the case, and no injustice had been demonstrated. The Court dismissed the review petition and the connected application, with no order as to costs, and directed the release of the bank guarantee to the petitioners.