E-way bill penalty dismissed as alternative remedy available through appeal despite technical portal issues

The HC dismissed the writ petition regarding penalty imposition for e-way bill validity issues, finding an efficacious alternative remedy available through appeal. The petitioner claimed technical portal glitches prevented proper e-way bill extension before expiry on 20th February, 2025, despite attempting timely extension. The court held that since the appellate authority was competent to consider all questions raised by the petitioner, including portal technical issues, the writ petition was not maintainable. The petition was dismissed without costs, with direction that the appellate authority should consider the case on merits if an appeal is filed.

---

---

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter include:

• Whether the petitioner, a transporter, validly extended the e-way bill under the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017, in the event of transshipment due to vehicle breakdown;
• Whether the failure of the e-way bill portal to reflect the registration number of the transshipped vehicle constitutes a technical error excusing non-compliance;
• Whether the impugned order imposing penalty under Section 129(3) of the said Act was justified given the facts;
• Whether the writ petition is maintainable in the presence of an efficacious alternative remedy in the form of an appeal;
• The extent to which the Court should engage in factual inquiries in writ jurisdiction where alternative remedies exist.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Validity and Extension of the E-Way Bill in Case of Transshipment

The petitioner contended that the original transport vehicle developed a snag en route, necessitating transshipment of goods to another vehicle. The petitioner asserted that prior to the expiry of the original e-way bill, an extension was duly applied for and granted, with the transshipped vehicle's registration number uploaded on the e-way bill portal. The legal framework governing this is Section 129(3) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017, which empowers authorities to impose penalties for unauthorized movement of goods without valid documents, including e-way bills.

The Court noted that the e-way bill and e-invoice were generated by the consignor, and the petitioner generated the e-way bill for transportation. The petitioner's argument was that the extension of the e-way bill was necessitated by the vehicle breakdown and that the transshipment was properly recorded on the portal.

However, the physical printout of the e-way bill did not reflect the registration number of the transshipped vehicle but instead showed the original vehicle's number. This discrepancy raised a factual question on whether the transshipment was properly recorded and whether the extension was validly effected. The Court observed that this issue required detailed factual inquiry, as the person responsible for uploading the details had not come forward to affirm the correctness of the data.

2. Technical Error in Portal and Its Legal Consequences

The petitioner argued that the failure of the portal to reflect the transshipped vehicle's registration number was a technical glitch beyond the petitioner's control, thereby constituting a technical error excusing the non-reflection on the e-way bill printout. The petitioner contended that all requisite data was submitted on time and within the validity period of the e-way bill.

The Court acknowledged this contention but noted that the respondents disputed the claim of a technical glitch. The Court emphasized that such factual disputes require investigation and cannot be resolved summarily in writ proceedings. The Court did not accept the petitioner's claim without corroborative evidence, especially given the absence of an affidavit from the individual who uploaded the data.

3. Legitimacy of Penalty Imposed under Section 129(3)

The penalty under Section 129(3) of the CGST/WBGST Act is imposed for unauthorized movement of goods without valid documentation. The respondents contended that since the e-way bill did not reflect the transshipment properly, the movement was unauthorized, justifying the penalty.

The petitioner challenged the penalty order as perverse, relying on the claim of valid extension and transshipment. The Court found that the penalty order was based on the findings of the proper officer after physical verification and issuance of show-cause notice. Given the factual disputes and the procedural compliance issues, the Court refrained from interfering with the penalty order in writ jurisdiction.

4. Maintainability of Writ Petition in Presence of Alternative Remedy

The respondents urged that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy in the form of an appeal against the penalty order, and therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable. The Court agreed with this submission, emphasizing that writ jurisdiction is not ordinarily exercised where alternative remedies exist and are efficacious.

The Court noted that the petitioner was free to file an appeal and that the appellate authority was competent and obliged to consider all issues raised, including the alleged technical glitches on the portal and the validity of the extension.

5. Scope of Court's Inquiry in Writ Jurisdiction

The Court observed that the petitioner's case involved disputed factual questions, including the correctness of data uploaded on the portal and the reasons for the vehicle breakdown and transshipment. The Court highlighted that such factual inquiries are not appropriate for summary adjudication in writ proceedings, especially when alternative remedies are available.

The Court noted the absence of an affidavit from the person who uploaded the data, which further militated against entertaining the writ petition.

Significant Holdings

The Court held that:

"Considering the fact that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy in the form of an appeal, I am of the view that there is no scope to entertain the petition."

"The appellate authority who is otherwise competent enough shall be obliged to consider all questions as raised by the petitioner and dispose of the appeal, if the same is filed in accordance with law."

Core principles established include:

• The necessity of adherence to procedural requirements under the CGST/WBGST Act, including correct reflection of vehicle details in e-way bills during transshipment;
• The importance of alternative remedies and the limited scope of writ jurisdiction in matters involving disputed factual issues;
• The recognition that technical glitches on government portals, if claimed, require substantiation and cannot be accepted without evidence;
• The obligation of appellate authorities to consider all relevant facts and submissions when appeals are filed against penalty orders.

Final determinations on each issue were:

• The petitioner's claim of valid extension of the e-way bill and proper transshipment was not accepted at the writ stage due to lack of evidence and factual disputes;
• The penalty imposed under Section 129(3) was not interfered with by the Court;
• The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of availability of efficacious alternative remedy in the form of appeal;
• The petitioner was directed to pursue the appeal, with the appellate authority mandated to consider all relevant issues including alleged technical glitches.

---