Calcutta High Court Overturns Excessive Penalty on Bitumix India LLP for E-Way Bill Violation

The Calcutta High Court has granted relief to Bitumix India LLP and other appellants by overturning the penalty imposed by

By: :  Ajay Singh
Update: 2023-07-13 09:00 GMT

Calcutta High Court Overturns Excessive Penalty on Bitumix India LLP for E-Way Bill Violation The Calcutta High Court has granted relief to Bitumix India LLP and other appellants by overturning the penalty imposed by the adjudicating and appellate authorities. The penalty has been revised to a fine of ₹50,000, which includes CGST and WBGST, as opposed to the initially imposed 200 per...

Calcutta High Court Overturns Excessive Penalty on Bitumix India LLP for E-Way Bill Violation

The Calcutta High Court has granted relief to Bitumix India LLP and other appellants by overturning the penalty imposed by the adjudicating and appellate authorities. The penalty has been revised to a fine of ₹50,000, which includes CGST and WBGST, as opposed to the initially imposed 200 per cent penalty.

In this case, the appellants were transporting goods to Assam with a valid e-way bill until March 18, 2022. Unfortunately, a vehicle breakdown occurred, causing the goods to remain in West Bengal at Dankuni on the aforementioned date. Meanwhile, the consignee sold the goods to another buyer in Assam, necessitating the generation of a new e-way bill on March 22, 2022, for further transportation.

However, on March 25, 2022, the vehicle was detained, and a penalty was imposed on the appellants for their failure to renew or extend the initial e-way bill beyond March 18. As a result, the appellants were charged under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, leading to the imposition of a 200 per cent penalty.

The Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Uday Kumar acknowledged that the appellants' sole mistake was their failure to renew the e-way bill, despite the goods being sold during transit. Although the violation was recognised, the Court deemed it insufficient to warrant a 200 per cent penalty. Considering that the goods were covered by a valid e-way bill at the time of interception, fulfilling the requirements of Section 129 of the Act, the Court concluded that the appellants should be placed on terms.

Tags:    

By: - Ajay Singh

Similar News