Order Date – 01 December 2023

Parties: Asian Switchgear Private Limited Vs State Tax Officer, Bureau of Investigation, North Bengal, Headquarters & Ors.

Facts –

• The Appellant, Asian Switchgear Private Limited,  generated a valid e-way bill for transportation of electrical switches for delivery at Arunachal Pradesh. Due to mechanical failure of vehicle the goods were transported in another vehicle.
• The subsequent vehicle had been intercepted and detained, however the e -way bill was still valid. Accordingly penalty under Section 129 (3) of the Act of 2017 have been imposed.

Issue –

• Whether the imposition of penalty is proper?

Order –

• The Divisional Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that the Adjudicating Authority has to consider the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, after affording the defaulter an opportunity of hearing and arrive at the finding whether there was a violation requiring imposition of penalty or not. Imposition of penalty cannot be said to be automatic given the mechanism provided for by the legislature in Section 129 (3) and (4) by affording an opportunity of hearing to the defaulter before imposition of the penalty.
• In the facts of the present case, e-way bill in respect of the goods transported was yet to expire when, the new vehicle had been detained. The explanation given by the appellant that, the driver of the old vehicle did not know the law and therefore did not comply with the same and did not inform the appellant about the same, should have been evaluated, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, by the Adjudicating Authority in light of the e-way bill being valid till then in respect of the first vehicle.
• Appellate Authority had the jurisdiction and in fact was obliged to deal with the grounds of appeal pressed at the hearing of the appeal. Respondent has not contended that, the defence canvassed in the show cause notice and the grounds pressed in the appeal were not canvassed or pressed by the appellant at the time of hearing before the Adjudicating or the Appellate Authority.
• It was found that the impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority as upheld by the Appellate Authority to have violated the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as it has not spoken on the defence taken. Consequently, both the orders passed by them are set aside.