Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2023 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 97 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURTReturn of goods for repairs originally meant for export - Expiry of e-way bill - the eight hour period for extension of the validity fo e-way bill had expired - the goods while being loaded into the vessel and had got damaged - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the e-Way Bill, it is seen that no tax was payable since the goods which were owned by the appellants were taken back to their factory at Ranchi for repairs. The goods were detained while in transit at about 8.20 a.m. on 13.09.2019. In terms of Rule 138(10) of the WBGST Rules an option is given to the assessee to extend the period of e-Way Bill and such extension should be done before eight hours and after eight hours of the expiry of its validity. Admittedly the eight hour period expired about 8.10 a.m. on 13.09.2019 and at about 8.20 a.m. the goods were intercepted and detained. The identical issue was considered by the Court in various matters and some of which being in the case of PROGRESSIVE METALS PVT. LIMITED VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, STATE TAX, BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION SOUTH BENGAL, DURGAPUR ZONE & ORS. [2022 (4) TMI 1542 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] and in KDG PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (NORTH BENGAL) , RAIGANJ ZONE & ORS. [2022 (9) TMI 1202 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] and the decision in Medha Servo Drives Private Limited & Anr. v. The Assistant Commissioner of, State Tax, Bureau of Investigation (South Bengal), Durgapur Zone & Ors. [2022 (11) TMI 1185 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT]. In all these matters the Court considered the conduct of the assessee and having found that the conduct was not with the intention to evade tax, granted relief to those assessees. The case on hand also would fall under the said category since there is no allegation of any evasion of tax rather it is not disputed that the goods were being transported under a cover of challan to the factory of the appellants for carrying out repairs. This Court is of the view that it is not a fit case where tax and penalty should have been levied on the appellants - Petition allowed.
|