Part-50-One Pager Snapshot to the Latest Cases

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
129

Looking to the
peculiar
circumstances
penalty was
not leviable for
Expired Eway
Bill and High
Court
recognized
that Rule
138(10) when
provides for
extension of
eway bill also
mandates to
look at the
conduct of the
party for levy
of penalty

Progressive
Metals (P.) Ltd.
v. Deputy
Commissioner,
State Tax
[2023] 152
taxmann.com
158 (Calcutta)

Vehicle along with the goods entered the Durgapur industrial belt within the validity of the e-way bill. The vehicle was intercepted on 9th May, 2022
at 9:35 AM at Durgapur and the vehicle was detained along with the goods on the ground that the e-way bill had expired on 8th May, 2022 at 11:59
AM. The explanation given by the appellant was that it was a Sunday and the consignee had given instructions to unload the goods at a different
location within the same area and in this regard the appellant had produced e-mail sent by the consignee stating that they had given instructions
subsequently to unload the goods at a different location within the area to which the goods were sent as per the e-way bill.
The High Court observed that there was no intention on the part of the appellant to evade payment of tax. In any event, in terms of rule 138 of the
WBGST Rules, if an e-way bill had expired, the transporter had 08 hours time to seek for extension of the time stipulated in the e-way bill. If that
allowance is given, at the time when the vehicle along with the goods were intercepted, it was delayed by about 01 hour and 35 minutes. The particular
details given in e-way bill will show that area Durgapur has also been mentioned. It is not disputed that vehicle was within the Durgapur industrial belt
though not at Panagarh. Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of any material produced
by the revenue to doubt the bona fides of the appellant, High Court held that penalty should not have been imposed in this case.
The revenue relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman, SEBI v. Shriram Mutual Fund & Anr. reported at [2006] 5 SCC 361
for the proposition that the intention of the authority committing such violation becomes immaterial when there is a contravention of the statutory
obligation.
The High Court observed that third proviso to Rule 138(10) states that the validity of e-way bill may be extended within 8 hours from the time of its
expiry. Thus, the rules give certain latitude and therefore, the conduct of the transporter was required to be examined bearing in mind that the rule
itself provides for extension of the validity period of the e-way bill and the transporter has been given a latitude of 8 hours to seek for such extension.
If that benefit was to be granted to the appellant, then the delay would be about 1 hour and 35 minutes. There is no other allegation against the
appellant. Therefore, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court held that this was not a case, where
penalty that too 200% penalty should have been imposed.

2

Section
112

NonConstitution of
Tribunal

Essar Steel
Suppliers v.
Union of India
[2023] 152
taxmann.com
128 (Bombay)

n the instant case, petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed to challenge an Order-in-Appeal dated 21 April, 2021 passed by
the Commissioner of Central Taxes, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Raigarh. Against the said order, an appeal was provided under Section
112 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 to the Appellate Tribunal. However, till today, the Tribunal has not been set up.
The High Court relying upon its Judgement in Rochem India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India & Ors.) dated 8 February 2023 held that the
period of filing the Appeal will stand extended as indicated in Clause 4.2 of the Circular dated 18 March 2020 and impugned order will not
be given effect until two weeks after the period prescribed for filing an appeal as under Clause 4.2 of Circular dated 18 March 2020 is over

3

Section
129

High Court
Mandates levy
of penalty of
Rs 50000 for
generation of
new Eway Bill
without
extending the
validity of
previous
Eway Bill

Bitumix India
LLP v. Deputy
Commissioner
of Revenue,
State Tax.
[2023] 152
taxmann.com
122 (Calcutta)

The goods which were being transported by the appellants to Assam were covered by e-Way Bill which was valid upto 18th March, 2022. On account
of the breakdown of the vehicle the goods did not move outside the territory of the State of West Bengal and was stationed at Dankuni on 18.03.2022.
The consignee in the meantime had sold the goods which were in transit to another purchaser in Assam and the goods were transported by the same
vehicle after generating a new e-Way Bill on 22.03.2022. The vehicle was detained on 25.03.2022 and order of penalty has been passed on the
ground of first e-Way Bill on 18.03.2022 had not been renewed/extended by the appellants.
The High Court observed that it is not in dispute on the date and time and the goods were intercepted that was on 25.03.2022 the appellants had a
valid e-Way Bill. The only mistake committed by the appellants was of not renewing the e-Way Bill which expired on 18.03.2022. This in opinion of
the High Court should not have been done since the goods were sold in transit. Therefore, violation had been committed by the appellants but
the violation was not as grave enough to call for imposition of penalty at the rate of 200% as on the date when the vehicle was intercepted
the goods were covered by a valid e- Way Bill which satisfies the requirement under Section 129 of the Act. However, the High Court further
held that that the mistake committed by the appellants in not renewing the earlier e-Way Bill which expired on 18.03.2022 the appellants should be
put on terms and thus the order passed was modified with the direction to the appellants to pay a penalty of Rs.50,000/- which will include
both CGST and WBGST instead of 200% penalty as imposed by the authorities