Court remands GST case back to Appellate Authority for fresh consideration on e-way bill issue.

Case Name:

WPA 1271 of 2023 - M/s. OFB Tech Private Limited Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.(High Court of West Bengal)

Key Takeaways:

- The court emphasized the need to consider the facts and circumstances of the case, rather than taking a overly technical approach. - The petitioner's explanation regarding the vehicle breakdown and immediate generation of a new e-way bill was not properly considered by the Appellate Authority. - The matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority to pass a fresh speaking order after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard and considering the court's observations. **Issue:** Whether the Appellate Authority under the West Bengal GST Act properly considered the petitioner's explanation regarding the generation of a new e-way bill within three minutes of interception, due to a vehicle breakdown. **Facts:** - The petitioner's vehicle carrying goods was intercepted on 9th December 2021 for not having an e-way bill. - The petitioner claimed that the original vehicle had a valid e-way bill generated on 7th December 2021, valid till 10th December 2021. - However, the original vehicle broke down, and the goods were shifted to another vehicle. - At the time of interception of the second vehicle, it did not have an e-way bill, but a new e-way bill was generated within three minutes. - The petitioner explained that they could not anticipate the registration number of the second vehicle for generating the e-way bill earlier. - The Appellate Authority dismissed the petitioner's appeal and confirmed the order imposing penalty and tax. **Arguments:** - Petitioner: The Appellate Authority did not properly consider the explanation regarding the vehicle breakdown and immediate generation of a new e-way bill within three minutes of interception. - Respondents: Not explicitly mentioned in the order. **Key Legal Provisions:** - Relevant provisions of the West Bengal GST Act regarding e-way bills and penalties. **Judgment:** The court set aside the impugned order dated 12th September 2022 and the rectification order dated 16th November 2022 of the Appellate Authority. The matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority with the following directions: 1. The Appellate Authority shall pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with the law. 2. The petitioner or its authorized representative shall be given an opportunity to be heard. 3. The Appellate Authority shall consider the observations made by the court regarding the petitioner's explanation of the vehicle breakdown and immediate generation of a new e-way bill. 4. The fresh order shall be passed within 12 weeks from the date of communication of this order. **FAQs:** Q1. What was the main issue in this case? A1. The main issue was whether the Appellate Authority properly considered the petitioner's explanation regarding the generation of a new e-way bill within three minutes of interception, due to a vehicle breakdown. Q2. Why did the court remand the matter back to the Appellate Authority? A2. The court found that the Appellate Authority did not properly consider the petitioner's explanation and took an overly technical approach in dismissing the appeal. Therefore, the matter was remanded back for a fresh decision after considering the court's observations. Q3. What directions did the court give to the Appellate Authority? A3. The court directed the Appellate Authority to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with the law, give the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, consider the court's observations regarding the petitioner's explanation, and pass the fresh order within 12 weeks. Q4. What was the significance of the court's observation regarding taking an overly technical approach? A4. The court emphasized the need to consider the facts and circumstances of the case, rather than taking an overly technical approach. This observation highlights the importance of a fair and reasonable interpretation of the law, considering the practical realities faced by taxpayers.

Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the Appellate Authority under WBGST Act, dated 12th September, 2022, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and confirming the order in original dated 17th December, 2021 imposing penalty and tax under relevant provision of the WBGST Act, on the ground that at the time of interception of the vehicle in question it was not having e-way bill which was intercepted on 9th December, 2021. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner was carrying the goods in question having valid e-way bill generated on 7th December, 2021 and was valid till 10th December, 2021 and before the expiry of the e-way bill relating to the said vehicle in question, there was a break down of the same and it could not move and remained stationary and at the time when the break down took place, e-way bill was very much valid and had not expired.

Thereafter, arrangement was made for another vehicle in which the very same goods in question was shifted. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of interception of the second vehicle in question in which the same goods in question was shifted it was not having any e-way bill but immediately within three minutes after interception of the second vehicle in question new e-way bill was generated and explanation by the petitioner for generation of the new e-way bill in connection with the second vehicle in question is that it could not anticipate the registration number of the vehicle for which as per rule e-way bill has to be generated and immediately after loading of the very same goods in question it generated the fresh e-way bill relating to the said vehicle though it was done within three minutes after interception of the same.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as appears from record and submission of the parties and on perusal of the impugned order of the Appellate Authority, I am of the view that the case of the petitioner as made out in this with petition regarding the break down of the vehicle in question and generation of new e-way bill generated in respect of the same goods in question within three minutes after the interception of the vehicle in question by the respondents, has not been properly considered by the Appellate Authority for rejection and dismissal of the appeal on this ground is too much technical in this case as appears to this court from the facts and circumstances of the case.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12th September, 2022 along with the rectification order dated 16th November, 2022 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority concerned to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its authorised representative and after taking into consideration the observation made in this order on the issue raised by the petitioner, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of communication of this order.

With this observation and direction, this writ petition being WPA 1271 of 2023 is disposed of.

(Md. Nizamuddin, J.)