TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without any e-way bill imposed penalty. The petitioner ought to appreciate that when an e-way bill is generated then the details of the goods to be transported, the place from where the shipment is made and the final destination are mentioned therein along with the details of the transporter and the vehicle number. Apart from the taxing purpose, the e-way bill is generated to identify the goods that are being transported, the place from where it is being transported, the final destination and the vehicle number by which the goods will be transported. The same implies that the goods cannot and ought not to be transferred from one vehicle to the other, far less, transported via a different vehicle, without obtaining a proper e-way bill. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bill in question was generated on 10th June, 2022 and the same was valid upto 21st June, 2022. The vehicle number against which the e-way bill was generated was specifically mentioned therein. The goods which were being transported against the aforesaid e-way bill were intercepted on 19th June, 2022, from a different conveyance, not mentioned in the e-way bill. On demand, the person in charge of the goods and conveyance failed to produce any document in support of the said goods being transported by a different conveyance. As there was failure on the part of the person in charge to produce documents in support of the movement of the goods, the goods were seized and later released on payment of penalty under Section 129(3) of the West Ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner either at the adjudication stage or before the appellate forum. The show cause reply was not considered properly and the same was an empty formality, mechanical in nature. The penalty was determined prior to the opportunity of hearing given to the petitioner which is contrary to the provision of Section 129(4) of the Act. It has been argued that instead of imposition of hefty penalty amount, the authority ought to have released the goods upon furnishing a security as per Section 129(1)(c) of the Act. The authority ought to have appreciated the reason for temporary shipment of the goods via a different conveyance and ought not to have imposed penalty after detecting that the description of the goods mentioned in the e-way bill ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uljag Industries vs. Commercial Tax Officer reported in (2007) 7 SCC 269 there is no question of proving of intention or of mens rea as the same is excluded from the category of essential element for imposing penalty. Penalty is attracted as soon as there is contravention of statutory obligations. Intention of parties committing such violation is wholly irrelevant. Reliance has also been placed on judgment delivered by this Court on 6th February, 2023 in WPA 190 of 2023 in Ashok and Sons (HUF) vs- Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Office of the Senior Joint Commissioner, Siliguri Circle Ors. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and have perused the materials on record. It appears that the adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is committed, liable to be dealt with in accordance with the statute. There may be instances where, for illegal purpose, the goods are off loaded in the midway and taken to a different destination other than the one mentioned in the e-way bill. It is not for the authority to ascertain the reason as to why such action has been undertaken. There is no requirement in law to verify the reason for transporting goods in a vehicle without a proper e-way bill. The facts of Satyam Shivam (supra) and Ramji Jaiswal (supra) do not fit into the facts of the present case, and accordingly, the ratio laid down therein cannot be made applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. On the other hand, in Guljag Industries (supra) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
