2025 (9) TMI 739

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... W.P.A. 8453 of 2024 holding that there is no scope for passing any interim order and the matter requires affidavits to be filed for final adjudication. Accordingly, directions were issued for filing affidavits. The appellants have filed this intra-Court appeal contending that the scope of the writ petitioners is very narrow and there are several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, wherein orders imposing penalty under Section 129 of the C.G.S.T./W.B.G.S.T. Act were put to challenge and they were set aside as the only ground was that the e-way bill had expired. Therefore, it is submitted that the writ petition and the appeal may be disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. We have heard the heard the submission....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ause notice was issued and the appellants appeared before the authority and contended that since the goods were perishable, without prejudice to the rights and contentions, they had paid the penalty and the goods may be released. After the goods were released, the appeal was preferred before the appellate authority. Various grounds have been raised and reliance was placed on the various decisions of the Courts, which have held that when the goods could not be delivered within validity period of e-way bill because of traffic blockage and while detaining the goods, the GST officer kept the same in the house of his relative instead of a designated place. Additional cost was imposed on the authority in view of the harassment faced by the ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and the only allegation being that the e-way bill was not extended, we are of the view that it is not a case where 200% penalty should have been imposed on the appellants. 10. In Progressive Metals Private Limited (supra) more or less similar facts were considered by the Court and after taking note of Rule 138 of the W.B.G.S.T. Rules, which allows the transporter 08 hours time to seek for extension and if such allowance was granted in the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay was 01 hour and 35 minutes though in the case on hand, the delay after giving the 08 hours allowance, is 17 hours, the revenue has not been able to demonstrate lack of bona fides on the part of the appellants. 11. Therefore, we are of the clear view tha....