Case Details: Shekhar Kumar @ Shekhar Bagaria Versus State of West Bengal (2025) 30 Centax 72 (Cal.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.
- Shri Dhiraj Lakhotia, Ms Radhika Agarwal, Ms Meghana Joshi & Ms Khushi Kundu, Advs. for the Petitioner.
- Shri Joyjit Choudhury, Ld. AAG & Ms Rima Sarkar, Advs. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The respondent-assessee’s conveyance carrying goods was intercepted by authorities on the ground that the person in charge failed to produce the tax invoice at the time of interception. Consequently, the goods were detained through an order of detention, and a show cause notice proposing penalty was issued to the assessee. The penalty order was affirmed by the Appellate Authority, and the assessee’s subsequent appeal was rejected. The assessee then filed a writ petition challenging the penalty. It was undisputed that the e-way bill was produced during inspection, and the revenue did not allege any discrepancy regarding the quality or quantity of goods mentioned therein.
Furthermore, the tax invoice was attached with the petition, and its authenticity was not questioned by the revenue. The primary issue was whether the penalty under section 129 of the CGST Act and the West Bengal GST Act was justified despite these facts.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble High Court held that since the e-way bill was produced at the time of inspection and no discrepancies were found in the goods, there was no evidence of any intention by the assessee to evade tax. The appellate order affirming the penalty lacked justification as there was no finding of any violation warranting detention or penalty under section 129. Therefore, the Court set aside the appellate order and granted the assessee liberty to seek a refund of the penalty already paid.
List of Cases Cited
- Joint CCTes (Appeals)-3, Bengaluru v. Transways India Transport — (2024) 20 Centax 554 (Kar.) — Referred [Para 7]
