TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 603
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcial Taxes, Siliguri Circle, Siliguri being the respondent no.1 thereby rejecting the appeal preferred against the adjudication order no.240 dated October 8, 2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Bureau of Investigation, North Bengal Headquarter, Directorate of Commercial Taxes, being the respondent no.2. 2. The writ petitioner claims to be engaged in the business of executing hydro and other renewable energy related projects across India. The petitioner is registered under the Sikkim Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, 'SKGST Act') and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, 'CGST Act'). For the purpose of execution of a project at Sikkim, the petitioner claims to have purchased a hydro mobile cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder was passed demanding tax and penalty against the petitioner. 5. Being aggrieved against the order of the adjudicating authority dated October 8, 2021, petitioner preferred statutory appeal under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017 and the appellate authority by order dated April 18, 2022 rejected the appeal petition upon holding that there is no reason to interfere with the adjudication order. 6. The petitioner has challenged the orders of the appellate authority and the adjudicating authority in this writ petition. 7. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the validity period of the E-Way bill dated September 25, 2021 expired only on October 3, 2021. The case of the petitioner is that since October 3, 2021 wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the GST Rules, 2017 held that the alleged breach do not fall within the ambit of "minor breach" as provided under the provisions of the GST Act. He, thus, submits that the order of the adjudicating authority, which was subsequently affirmed in appeal by the appellate authority may not be interfered with by this Hon'ble Court exercising the powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as there is no infirmity in the decision making process. 9. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perused the materials on record. 10. There is no dispute as regards the quantity and description of the goods as well as the particulars of the vehicle carrying the said crane as mentioned in the E-Way bill dated Septembe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idered to be a bona fide one as the petitioner cannot be said to benefitted in any way by the delay in transportation of the crane. Moreover the period between expiry of the validity period of the E-Way bill dated September 25, 2021 and the time of interception and consequent detention of such vehicle is not a substantial one. Though Mr. Ghosh may be right in contending that the alleged breach does not strictly fall within the scope of 'minor breach' but considering the nature of the alleged breach, this Court is of the considered view that the same cannot be said to be a grave one for the purpose of holding the assessee liable to penalty as directed by the orders passed by the authorities under the said statute as it is not a case of tax e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the vehicle, etc. The case has to be approached by considering the bona fides of the transaction as to whether the case warrants detention of the goods and collection of tax and penalty. Admittedly, the first e-way bill dated 7th September, 2019 was valid upto 9th September, 2019. Therefore, in the absence of second e-way bill, the tax authorities at Durgapur could not have intercepted or detained the vehicle. Therefore, the explanation offered by the respondent / writ petitioner was an acceptable explanation and a case cannot be made out that there was a deliberate and willful attempt on the part of the respondent / writ petitioner to evade payment of tax so as to justify invocation of the power under Section 129 of the Act." 16. In A....