Order date 10 March 2023

Parties: Sandip Kumar Singhal Vs Deputy Commissioner, Revenue, Bureau of Investigation North Bengal Headquarter & Ors.

Facts – 

• The Petitioner, Sandip Kumar Singhal, was issued an order of seizure dated 22nd February, 2022 confiscating the goods and the same were seized by invoking power under Section 67(2) of the Act, also the e-way bill was already expired.
• As the goods were transported in contravention of Section 68 of the Act the adjudicating authority confirmed the penalty imposed under Section 129 (1)(a) of the Act. On payment of the penalty amount the goods of the petitioner were released.

Issue –

• Whether the confiscation of goods on expiry of e-way bill is valid?

Order –

• The Single Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that the goods in question were not seized while in transit. They were seized two days after expiry of the e-way bill from a godown, which is not mentioned in e-way bill. The e-way bill is for the purpose of moving/transporting the goods from one place to the other. Law does not require a way bill to remain valid for such period the goods remain in the godown.
• The petitioner was certainly at fault in not recording the additional godown at the time of generation of the e-way bill, but at the same time, the petitioner ought not to be penalized with two hundred percent penalty for such trivial offence. As the goods were not confiscated while on the move, imposition of penalty under Section 129 of the Act is erroneous and bad in law.
• In the case at hand it does not appear that the authority acted in accordance with the appropriate legal provisions and instead penalised the petitioner in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind. The respondent authority is directed to refund the amount collected from the petitioner as penalty.
• Hence the writ petition is disposed off.