Technical glitch in e-way bill leading to wrong vehicle number not grounds for writ petition when alternate remedy exists.

Issue:

Whether a writ petition challenging a penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017, due to a technical glitch in the e-way bill portal reflecting a wrong vehicle number after transshipment, should be admitted when an alternate remedy of appeal is available.

Facts:

The petitioner-assessee, a transporter, was engaged to transport goods from Kanpur to West Bengal, having received a consignment note, e-invoice, and e-way bill from the consignor. En route, the original transport vehicle developed a snag and became inoperational, necessitating the transshipment of goods to another vehicle. The e-way bill was duly extended within its validity period. However, due to a technical glitch on the e-way bill portal, an incorrect vehicle number was reflected on the extended e-way bill. The respondent authority intercepted the goods and subsequently passed an order of determination and a show-cause notice, imposing a penalty under Section 129(3) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017, for this discrepancy. The assessee filed a writ petition against this action.

Decision:

The writ petition was not admitted, and the decision was in favor of the revenue. The court held that there was an available alternative remedy in the form of an appeal, and the appellate authority was fully competent to consider all the questions raised by the assessee, including the technical glitch and the circumstances of transshipment, and dispose of the appeal on its merits. The court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction, reiterating the principle that statutory alternative remedies should generally be exhausted first.

Key Takeaways:

The existence of a statutory alternative remedy, such as an appeal under Section 129 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017, is a sufficient ground for a High Court to decline to entertain a writ petition.
Technical glitches in official portals, while potentially a valid defense, should primarily be raised and adjudicated before the statutory appellate authorities who are equipped to examine factual and legal contentions.
Assessees are generally expected to exhaust all available alternate remedies before approaching the High Court through a writ petition, unless extraordinary circumstances (such as a complete lack of jurisdiction or violation of fundamental rights) are demonstrated.
The appellate authority has the power to delve into factual aspects and consider various submissions, making it an appropriate forum for addressing issues like technical glitches and transshipment circumstances.

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

Pawan Carrying Corporation

State of West Bengal

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.

WPA No. 7429 of 2025

APRIL 16, 2025

D.V. Pathy, Sr. Adv., Anada Sen, Hiresh Karan, Ms. Shivani Dewalla and Sabyasachi Mondalfor the Petitioner. T.M. Siddiqui, Ld.A.G.P., N. Chatterjee, Tanoy Chakraborty and S. Sanyalfor the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Challenging the order of determination dated 25^th February, 2025 issued by the respondent No. 3 and the show-cause notice dated 4^th March, 2025, the order dated 11^th March, 2025 passed by the respondent No. 3 imposing penalty under Section 129(3) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the instant writ petition has been filed.

2. The petitioner is a transporter and is engaged in the business of transportation of goods.

3. The learned senior advocate representing the writ petitioner would submit that the petitioner for the purpose of transporting goods from Kanpur to Ukilpara (wrongly mentioned as Ulkipara), West Bengal was issued a consignment note by the consigner, namely, Maa Vindhya Vashni Tobaco P. Ltd., Kanpur to be delivered to Urmila Enterprises, Ukilpara, West Bengal. The Consigner of the goods also issued and generated an e-invoice on 8^th February, 2025. It is on the basis of the e-invoices that the consigner of the goods also issued an e-way bill. The description of the consigner, consignee, the respective tax identification nos. and the description of goods with applicable rate of taxes are all mentioned in the e-invoice and e-way bill.

4. On the basis of aforesaid, the petitioner had thereafter generated an e-way bill on 14^th February, 2025. The transport vehicle (truck) had commenced its journey of transporting the goods on the basis of the e-way bill and the e-invoice and had crossed Baduri-check post in Uttar Pradesh on 17^th February, 2025 at 23:24:47 hrs. After crossing the aforesaid post, the transport vehicle bearing registration No. UP 78 JT 5955 reached Azamgarh, UP on 19^th February, 2025 where the said transport vehicle developed a snag and became inoperational. The factum of the transport vehicle having become inoperational was reported by the driver whereupon the petitioner had taken steps to transship the goods to another vehicle and accordingly the petitioner had requested a transport agent, namely, Sh. Mayank Shukla, to arrange a transport vehicle to carry goods from Azamgarh to the place of its destination at West Bengal. Accordingly, a transport truck bearing No. UP 71 BT 6157 was involved in the transshipment and the petitioner had accordingly prior to the expiry of the e-way bill on 20^th February, 2025 had extended the same till 24^th February, 2025. While extending such e-way bill, the petitioner had filled in the registration number of the other transport vehicle bearing No. UP 71 BT 6157 on the portal. Unfortunately, when the e-way bill was generated, the petitioner noticed that the number of transport vehicle being UP 71 BT 6157 did not find place rather the number of the earlier truck bearing No. UP 78 JT 5955 was mentioned. Later on 23^rd February, 2025 at around 4:12 a.m., the respondent No. 3 had intercepted the transport vehicle and had also recorded the statement of the petitioner’s driver.

5. Upon completion of physical verification inspection of the conveyance and after issuance of the show-cause, a final order under Section 129(3) of the said Act was passed.

6. Mr. Pathy, learned senior advocate/representing the petitioner by drawing attention of this Court to the order dated 11^th March, 2025 would submit that the findings rendered by the proper Officer is perverse. According to him, the petitioner had actually uploaded the number of the transshipped vehicle being No. UP 71 BT 6157 on the portal, however, the same did not register on the portal. He has also drawn attention of this Court to the e-way bill to highlight the fact that the extension was made within the validity of the eway bill and the interception was also within the validity of the e-way bill. The petitioner had no role in the e-way bill not reflecting the number of the transshipped vehicle and all particulars of all invoice numbers of the intercepted goods matches with the eway invoice and the goods which have been intercepted. In the facts noted above, the order dated 11^th March, 2025 should be set aside, the vehicle and the goods be released.

7. Mr. Siddiqui, learned senior advocate and additional Government Pleader appears on behalf of the respondents. He would submit that in the instant case the e-way bill does not reflect that the same was being transshipped by a different vehicle. The e-way bill only records that the validity of the e-way bill has been extended. According to him, the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy in the form of an appeal. In such circumstances, this Court may be pleased not to entertain the writ petition.

8. Having heard the respective parties and having considered the materials on record, I find that in the instant case, the petitioner claims that it was transporting goods from Kanpur to West Bengal under a valid e-invoice as also a valid e-way bill. It is petitioner’s case that the e-way bill was due to expire on 20^th February, 2025, however, prior to its expiry, the petitioner had duly extended the validity of the e- way bill.

9. Mr. Pathy, learned senior advocate representing the petitioner would submit that the aforesaid extension was necessitated since the vehicle in question through which the goods were being transported developed a snag which requires the goods to be transshipped through another vehicle. Although the petitioner had duly filled up all data as regards the transshipped vehicle and uploaded the same on the portal, the print out of the e-way bill, however, demonstrated that the registration number of the transshipped vehicle did not reflect on the e-way bill and that the e-way bill recorded the registration number of the original vehicle. He would submit that reasons for extension also do not appear from the aforesaid e-way bill, which according to him is a technical error. Accordingly to him, the portal also does not support reflection of the transshipped vehicle number which fact has, however, been denied by Mr. Siddiqui, learned advocate representing the respondents.

10. In this context, I may note that the case made out by the petitioner in paragraph 10 of the writ petition would require detailed enquiry on factual issues. Though a claim has been made that the petitioner had filled up all particulars, however, having regard to the e-way bill which has been disclosed in the petition, I am of the view that the it would be difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner without this Court entering into a detailed enquiry on factual basis, especially, in view of the fact that the person who had uploaded and filled up the particulars on the portal as pointed out by Mr. Pathy, learned Senior advocate representing the petitioner, was Mr. Dipendra Kumar, and that he had not come forward to affirm any affidavit to that effect. Having regard thereto, I am not inclined to admit the writ petition especially when there is an efficacious alternative remedy available.

11. At this stage, learned senior advocate representing the petitioner would submit that in the event, the petitioner prefers an appeal, appropriate direction should be issued on the appellate authority to consider the case of the petitioner on merits including but not limited to glitches as identified by the petitioner on the portal. Having regard to the submissions made by the petitioner, I am of the view that the appellate authority who is otherwise competent enough shall be obliged to consider all questions as raised by the petitioner and dispose of the appeal, if the same is filed in accordance with law.

12. Considering the fact that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy in the form of an appeal, I am of the view that there is no scope to entertain the petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed without any order as to costs.