Judgment Date: 02.08.2025
Coram: Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das)
Case Background
The appellants challenged the penalty of ₹7,31,661/- (200% of tax) imposed under Section 129 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017.
Reason: Goods were intercepted on 04.04.2025 at 3:10 PM without a valid e-way bill, which had expired on 03.04.2025 midnight.
The appellate authority had earlier upheld the penalty.
Key Facts
E-way bill generated on 28.03.2024 for transportation from Manipur to Raiganj (West Bengal), covering 1095 kms.
Validity expired on 03.04.2025 midnight. Extension was permissible till 04.04.2025 8:00 AM, but not availed.
At interception, goods and invoices were otherwise in order — only lapse was expiry of e-way bill.
Court’s Findings
Law requires valid e-way bill; responsibility lies with transporter.
However, in this case:
No dispute about goods, quantity, or invoices.
Goods had almost reached destination (90 kms short).
Circumstances did not justify a harsh penalty of 200%.
Court relied on precedent (MAT 470 of 2022 – Ashok Kumar Sureka case) where penalty was quashed in similar facts.
Decision
Penalty reduced to ₹25,000/- (notional penalty).
Amount already deposited by appellants to be refunded, after adjusting ₹25,000/- equally under WBGST and CGST.
Refund to be completed within 3 weeks.
Appeal and writ petition allowed.
Key Takeaway
The High Court held that while transporting goods without a valid e-way bill is a violation, a technical lapse near destination cannot attract 200% penalty. A reasonable notional penalty is sufficient in such cases.
Disclaimer: This is a general legal update based on a court judgment and is meant for information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice.