TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1444
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had been generated in accordance with the said Act of 2017 and the Rules framed thereunder. 3. It has been contended by the petitioner that in terms of the tax invoice and e-way bill "the conveyance was placed in the goods vehicle in Sundarighopa, Assam but the concerned authority alleged that as per the RFID the conveyance was placed in the West Bengal particularly between Rangalibazna Toll Plaza and Husludanga Toll Plaza". 4. On November 14, 2025, an order of detention in Form GST MOV-07 was served upon the petitioner's representative and a notice to show-cause was also served upon the petitioner to which, the petitioner replied by e-mail dated November 18, 2025. Thereafter, on November 21, 2025, an order in Form GST MOV-09 was passed against the petitioner holding that the petitioner was liable to pay penalty to the tune of Rs. 79,69,500/- under Section 129(1)(b) of the said Act of 2017. It is this order, which has been assailed in the present writ petition. 5. Mr. Mazumder, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the order has been passed in utter violation of the provisions of Section 129(1)(a) of the said Act of 2017 inasmuch as, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he petitioner upon the petitioner paying penalty calculated in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the said Act of 2017.It is submitted that the subject goods i.e. areca nuts have a short shelf life and if the same are not released timely the same would become unfit for use. 10. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents-State Authorities, vehemently counters the submissions of Mr. Mazumdar and submits that this Court should not interfere with the order impugned inasmuch as the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy in the form of an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the said Act of 2017. 11. He further submits that this is not a case where there has only been a technical violation of the Rules rather, it is a case where the petitioner's suppliers credentials and the genuineness of the transaction on the basis of which the petitioner claims ownership of the subject goods has been questioned. 12. He takes this Court through the order impugned and submits that the respondent-GST authority has reached a finding that the e-way bill is fraudulent in nature and the conveyance was not present in the State of Assam at the ti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er's purchaser from the petitioner's place of business at Sundarighapa, Kamrup, Assam on the same day i.e. November 10, 2025 at 8.28 p.m. There was thus a time difference of only 36 minutes between the two e-way bills making the transaction impossible inasmuch as distance between Dhubri to Kamrup is 266 kilometers, which cannot be traversed in such short period. 16. Mr. Chakraborty further relied on a Co-Ordinate Bench judgment of this Court in case of S.N. Trading Co. v. Union of India, reported at [2025] 175 taxmannb.com 942 (Calcutta) for the proposition that in cases where no jurisdictional error has been committed by the statutory authority and there is a forum for appeal provided by the statute, this Court should not interfere with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner should be left free to approach the appellate authority. 17. Heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considered the material on record. 18. It is too well settled that existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar for the Writ Court to entertain a writ petition in cases where there is either an allegation as regards violation of princi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ge Siraspur, Libaspur, Siraspur Road, Siraspur, New Delhi, North Delhi, Delhi 110042. The approximate distance between Dhubri, Guwahati, Assam - 783301 and Sundarighopa, Kamrup, Assam - 781101 is 266 km. ... The distance of 266 km between Dhubri, Guwahati, Assam - 783301 and Sundarighopa, Kamrup, Assam - 781101 cannot be travelled in 36 minutes which is the difference of time between the generation of the aforesaid two e waybills. As also the conveyance no.BR28GB4747, description and quantity of goods declared in the aforesaid two e waybills are same the two e waybills cover one continuous supply. However as discussed above it is evident from the RFID toll data and weighment slip that the detained goods were loaded in the conveyance and dispatched from some place in West Bengal lying between Rangalibazna Toll Plaza, West Bengal and Husludanga Toll Plaza, West Bengal, and not from the declared place of dispatch in Sundarighopa, Kamrup, Assam - 781101. So the two e waybills had been generated to give concocted impression that the goods were being dispatched from Dhubri, Guwahati, Assam - 783301/ Sundarighopa, Kamrup, Assam - 781101 to conceal the actual supplier and evade ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... e-way bill details. In the instant case RFID is not the sole basis of the order impugned. 24. In Goutam Bhowmik (supra) the statutory authority was found to have acted in total derogation of the statute. Such is not the case here. There is no error of jurisdiction. It is settled that an error within jurisdiction, if any, is corrigible only before statutory the appellate forum. 25. Ashok Sharma (supra) was again not a case where there was any doubt cast on the genuineness of the transaction and there was no allegation or finding of fraud. It was a case where the GST authorities had travelled beyond their domain and embroiled the person concerned in the said case alleging discrepancy by relying on certain details that were not even there in the invoice. 26. Jagannath Trading (supra) was a case where the writ petition was admitted for being decided on affidavits and the order under section 129(3) came to be passed during pendency of the writ petition. It was in such context that an order directing the authorities to sell the areca nuts was passed. In the case at hand this Court is not minded to admit the writ petition and has relegated the petitioner to the appellate forum. ....