Order date – 01 December 2022

Key Pointers –

• The appellant, Rumki Biswas, had generated part A of the e-way bill on 22nd March, 2022 and part – B was generated on 24th March, 2022. However, since the goods could not be loaded into the vehicle, the appellant appears to have cancelled part A of e-way bill dated 22nd March, 2022 and generated new part A e-way bill on 24th March, 2022. When the vehicle was intercepted, the driver was carrying part B of e-way bill in respect of which part A has been cancelled.
• Accordingly penalty was imposed on the ground that the appellant had violated the provisions of Rule 138 of WBGST/CGST Rules, 2017.
• The issues involved here is whether the activity of the appellant would tantamount to intention to evade payment of duty or with a view to clandestinely move certain goods?
• The Hon’ble High Court observed that cumbersome exercise need not have been done by the appellate authority as the short issue, which falls for consideration is whether there was any intention on the part of the appellant to evade payment of duty.
• The High Court finds that in prima facie view, the activity of the appellant does not appear so and could be considered to be a bona fide error. The order passed by the appellate authority is a lengthy order and certain decisions of the High Courts have also been referred to.
• Partly, the appellant has contributed to such an exercise by the appellate authority by placing reliance on the decisions of the various High Courts, which in our view, may not have been required to have been done as the short point, which was required to be canvassed before the appellate authority was to establish the bona fides of the appellant and to prove that there was no intention to evade payment of duty.
• Hence the matter is remanded back to the appellate authority for fresh consideration on the aspect as to whether there was any wilful intention on the part of the appellant to evade payment of duty.