The Calcutta High Court has quashed the penalty against the Petitioner on the ground that just 56 minutes difference between weighment and e-way bill generation and the delay cannot be construed to be one with a willful intention to evade payment of tax.
The bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya has observed that the vehicle was intercepted at 6.00 p.m. on June 15, 2023 when the vehicle was proceeding towards the weigh-bridge for weighment. After completion of the weighment, the E-way bill was generated on June 15, 2023 at 6.56 p.m. Even assuming that there is a delay, the delay cannot be construed to be one with a willful intention to evade payment of tax.
The appellants had challenged an order passed by the appellate authority viz. the Senior Joint Commissioner of Revenue, Bally Circle dated October 5, 2024 by which the penalty imposed on the appellant under section 129 (1)(a) of the GST Act, 2017 was affirmed and the appeal came to be rejected.
The court held that there cannot be any intention or much less a willful intention on the part of the appellants to evade payment of tax. It is not a case, where penalty could have been imposed on the appellants under section 129(1)(a) of the GST Act.
The court allowed the appeal as well as the writ petition and quashed the order passed by the appellate authority and the order passed by the adjudicating authority.
The court held that the appellants are at liberty to seek for refund of the penalty amount, which was remitted by them and if such application is filed, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
Case Details
Case Title: Truth Udyog Metal and Steel Private Limited & Anr. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Revenue
Case No.: M.A.T. 2311 of 2024 With I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024
Date: 21.01.2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Ankit Kanodia Ms. Megha Agarwal Mr. Piyush Khaitan
Counsel For Respondent: Anirban Ray, Sr. Adv.Mr. T.M. Siddique, Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee, Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty Mr. S. Sanyal
