Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Steel Crackers Pvt. Ltd., challenged an appellate order dated 15.05.2019 which dismissed its appeal and confirmed an adjudication order dated 20.12.2018 imposing penalty under Section 129 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The adjudicating authority had recorded that the invoice/delivery challan was not accompanying the goods in movement, the driver produced an e-way bill (No. 851028568155) that, on verification, was found not to be the last e-way bill generated for the intercepted vehicle (WB-29A-0727) — the last valid one being a different number generated earlier — the e-way bill produced did not reflect the vehicle actually intercepted, and the quantity in the e-way bill did not match the goods physically found.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the appellate order confirming penalty under Section 129 of the WBGST Act suffered from any procedural irregularity or violation of natural justice warranting interference in writ jurisdiction.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The writ petition was filed challenging the appellate order as being liable to be set aside, though the specific grounds urged before the writ court are not separately elaborated in the order, which records that all the charges recorded by the adjudicating authority had in fact been admitted and not denied by the petitioner.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The State supported the concurrent findings of the adjudicating and appellate authorities, contending that the discrepancies in the e-way bill — mismatched vehicle number, mismatched quantity, and an e-way bill that was not even the last one generated for the vehicle — were undisputed and justified the penalty under Section 129.

Court Order / Findings

  • On perusing both the adjudication and appellate orders, the Court found that all the charges recorded by the adjudicating authority — non-accompaniment of proper documents, an incorrect/stale e-way bill, mismatch of vehicle number, and mismatch of quantity — had been admitted and were not denied by the petitioner.
  • The Court held that the appellate order was a reasoned, speaking order passed after affording personal hearing, was not contrary to any statutory provision, and disclosed no procedural irregularity, warranting no interference under Article 226.
  • The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

Important Clarification

Where the factual discrepancies forming the basis of a Section 129 detention/penalty order — such as a stale or mismatched e-way bill — are not disputed by the assessee at any stage, and the appellate order is a reasoned one passed after hearing, the writ court will not re-appreciate the facts or interfere merely because the assessee is aggrieved by the outcome.

Sections Involved

  • Section 129, WBGST Act, 2017 — provides for detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit found in contravention of the Act, and imposition of tax and penalty.
  • Rule 138, WBGST Rules, 2017 — prescribes the e-way bill requirements for movement of goods.

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the Department — the writ petition was dismissed and the penalty under Section 129 was upheld.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court at Calcutta
  • Case Number: WPA 13788 of 2019
  • CNR / Citation: WPA 13788 of 2019
  • Coram: Hon'ble Md. Nizamuddin, J.
  • Date of Order: 10 August 2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.