Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2022 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 1542 - HC - GSTLevy of 200% penalty in terms of section 129 of the WBGST Act, 2017 - vehicle detained on the ground of expired E-way bill - HELD THAT:- The revenue would rely upon rule 138 of the rules to state that the appellant ought to possess a valid e-way bill and admittedly when the vehicle was intercepted, time stipulated in the e-way bill had expired. Sub-rule (10) of rule 138 lays down the validity period for a e-way bill. The 2nd proviso in sub-rule (10) provides that in circumstances of an exceptional nature including trans-shipment, the goods cannot be transported within the validity period of the e-way bill. The transporter may extend the validity period after updating the details in Part B of FORM GST EWB-01 - third proviso 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 is 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 is granted to the appellant, then the delay would be about 1 hour and 35 minutes. Further, consignee Larsen & Toubro Construction had sent an e-mail on 15th May, 2022 stating that initially the goods were consigned to Kankora, Near Shantiniketan Road, Trilokchandrapur, Bud Bud, Panagarh, Durgapur, Barddhaman, West Bengal-713148. However, subsequently the consignee thought it to bring to another yard located at Degaule Avenue, Durgapur and the officer of the consignee accordingly, communicated the same - Admittedly the vehicle was within the area of Durgapur and even as per the revenue department, the distance between the place where the vehicle was intercepted and Durgapur was about 20 kilometres. There is no other allegation against the appellant. This is not a case, where penalty that too 200% penalty should have been imposed - Petition allowed.
|