JUDGMENT : (Deepak Roshan, J.): Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for following reliefs: (a) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing upon the respondents to show cause as to when from the originating State of movement of vehicle, genuine e-Way Bill was available, but only because of the fact that e-Way Bill had expired for genuine reasons, if at all, would attract section 129 of the Act, 2017 in the absence of any intention to evade taxes or contravention of provisions of the Act. (b) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, for quashing and setting aside the order dated 08.11.2021 (Annexure-4) passed by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner CGST & CX, Jamshedpur (Hqrs.), whereby and whereunder, tax and penalty to the tune of Rs. 5,18,660.00/- has been imposed on the ground that e-Way Bill had lost its validity, without any finding of evasion of tax, which otherwise is bad in law. (c) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, for quashing and setting aside the order dated 26.05.2022 (Annexure-8), wherein the Ld. Joint Commissioner (Appeals) CGST & CX, Ranchi, had been pleased to dismiss the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner upholding the order dated 08.11.2021 (Annexure-4) passed by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner CGST & CX, Jamshedpur (Hqrs.). (d) Consequently, issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent Authorities to refund the amount paid by the Petitioner in lieu of demand of tax and penalty raised by the Respondent No. 3 along with applicable interest in accordance with the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with the prescribed rules under Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. 3. The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the instant application is that the petitioner-company is engaged in the business of manufacture and supply of electric welded steel tubes. One M/s. Bhalotia Auto Products Private Limited, Purba Singhbhum, placed an order to the petitioner situated at Kolkata, West Bengal, for supply of 20.010 MT of MSPB RHS/SHS to its business premise at Purba Singhbhum. The petitioner raised Invoice bearing No. TCGF/02193/22 against the order placed and dispatched the same from West Bengal to Jamshedpur under proper cover of documents including e-way bill bearing no. 8111 8796 5282, in truck bearing no. JH 05AG 2092. The petitioner raised Invoice bearing No. TCGF/02193/22 against the order placed and dispatched the same from West Bengal to Jamshedpur under proper cover of documents including e-way bill bearing no. 8111 8796 5282, in truck bearing no. JH 05AG 2092. While the goods were in transit, the truck was intercepted on 06.11.2021 at 08:30 AM by the Inspector, Anti-Evasion, CGST & CX, Jamshedpur, for verification/inspection, on which it was found that the e-Way bill had expired on the previous date i.e., on 05.11.2021 at 12.00 AM and statement of the truck driver was recorded in Form GST MOV-01 and subsequently the vehicle along with the goods were directed to be stationed at GST Bhawan, Outer Circle Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur, by issuance of Form GST MOV-02 dated 06.11.2021. Pursuant thereto, physical verification was carried out and a report was issued in Form GST MOV-04 wherein, no discrepancy was found in the description of goods and quantity as mentioned in the invoice. Thereafter, an order of detention in Form GST MOV-06 and Show Cause Notice in Form GST MOV-07 were also issued in the name of the truck driver and personal hearing was fixed on 08.11.2021 at 04:30 PM. Surprisingly, on the very same day, without affording proper opportunity of hearing as contemplated in discharge of principles of natural justice, an order of demand of tax & penalty has been passed u/s 129(3) of the Act and Form GST MOV-09 has been issued by Respondent No. 3 solely on the ground that the validity of the e-Way bill had expired. Having no option but to release the truck, the petitioner company deposited the entire demand raised and confirmed by Respondent No. 3 vide Form GST DRC-03 for release of goods and the vehicle which was informed to the department vide petitioner’s letter dated 09.11.2021 wherein the petitioner had stated its objections as well. Upon verification, a release order in Form GST MOV-05 for release of vehicle was issued. The petitioner thereafter, filed an offline appeal before the Appellate Authority assailing the order dated 08.11.2021 passed by Respondent No. 3 which was registered as Appeal No. 117/CGST/JSR/2022. Upon verification, a release order in Form GST MOV-05 for release of vehicle was issued. The petitioner thereafter, filed an offline appeal before the Appellate Authority assailing the order dated 08.11.2021 passed by Respondent No. 3 which was registered as Appeal No. 117/CGST/JSR/2022. The matter was fixed for Personal Hearing through virtual mode on 06.05.2022 on which the counsel for the petitioner appeared and stated the reasons for delay i.e., delay because restriction of entry into the Adityapur Industrial Area, due to the festival of Diwali which led to expiry of e- Way bill. Pursuant thereto; final order was passed on 26.05.2022 being Order No. CGST(A)- 93/JSR/2021-22/1061-1066 wherein the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner holding that delay because of festive season is nowhere mentioned in the statute and hence the same cannot be considered as an explanation for expiry of e-Way bill and as such there is no merit in the appeal filed by the petitioner and upheld the order passed by Respondent No. 3. 4. Mr. N.K.Pasari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mere expiration of e-Way Bill by few hours in course of transportation would not invoke Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and Rule 138 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rule, 2017. He further submits that the Central Taxes Officer could not have initiated and passed an order under Section 129 of the Act, invoking powers in relation to inter-state transaction in view of Section 20 of Integrated Goods & Services Tax Act read with Section 129 of the Act. It is abundantly clear that only the proper officer noticed under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act has to invoke the jurisdiction. The respondents were not justified in imposing tax and liability only because the e-Way Bill had lost its validity while in transit. Admittedly, there was no intention to evade taxes, inasmuch as, all the other documents prescribed under the Act including e-Way Bill being genuine, and only on account of the same having expired, would not fall within the preview and ambit of contravention. 5. Mr. Admittedly, there was no intention to evade taxes, inasmuch as, all the other documents prescribed under the Act including e-Way Bill being genuine, and only on account of the same having expired, would not fall within the preview and ambit of contravention. 5. Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the CGST submits that petitioner had been extended the opportunity of personal hearing vide GST MOV-7 dated 08.11.2021 as mentioned in para 8 of the notice under section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017 and the State/Union territory Goods and Services Tax, 2017 under Section 70 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax, 2017. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is not proper. In this regard, Shri Samir Chakraborty was authorized by the petitioner to appear and sign documents in respect of seized vehicle. On the request of the petitioner themselves who prayed for early/immediate release of the seized vehicle, and that they did not want anything to submit on the issue. Accordingly, GST MOV-09 was issued by the proper authority in accordance with law. Learned counsel further submits that the contention of the petitioner is not proper as the Order no. 04/2021-22 dated 08.11.2021 was issued within the provisions of Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 and rules made thereunder by giving opportunity of personal hearing. As aforesaid, the petitioner authorized Shri Samir Chakraborty to appear and sign documents on behalf of M/s. Nezone Tube Limited before GST Authorities in the matter of the detained vehicle no. JH05AG 2092 along with goods of total quantity 20.010 MT (HSN 73066100) loaded on the said vehicle. Shri Chakraborty, authorized person of the petitioner, appeared before the Proper Authority and requested expeditious release of their goods along with vehicle intercepted. Neither the Petitioner nor their authorized representative submitted anything, orally or in writing, against the detention/ seizure of the vehicle and goods, nor could they give any reasonable grounds for the e-Way bill getting expired. All along, till the release of the vehicle, Shri Samir Chakraborty was available in the office and he was in touch with the petitioner. On the oral request and assurance for payment of tax liability and penalty, the Order no. 04/2021-22 dated 08.11.2021 (GST MOV - 09) was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Hqrs., Jamshedpur. Para No. 7 of the Order no. On the oral request and assurance for payment of tax liability and penalty, the Order no. 04/2021-22 dated 08.11.2021 (GST MOV - 09) was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Hqrs., Jamshedpur. Para No. 7 of the Order no. 04/2021-22 dated 08.11.2021 specifically stated that to quote: "(i) The owner of the goods/person in charge of the conveyance has come forward and made the payment of tax and penalty as proposed. In view of this, the applicable tax penalty proposed is hereby confirmed. (ii) The owner of the goods/persons in charge of the conveyance has neither made the payment of tax and penalty proposed nor has he filed any objections to the notice issued in FORM GST MOV 07 and hence, the proposed tax and penalty are confirmed." Subsequently, the petitioner deposited the tax liability along with penalty as determined under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 vide DRC-03 dated 09.11.2021. Therefore, the ground for not extending natural justice to the petitioner is not proper and legal. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the averments made in the respective affidavits and the documents annexed therein, it appears that one truck with goods was intercepted on 06.11.2021 at 08:30 AM by the Inspector, Anti-Evasion, CGST & CX, Jamshedpur, for verification/inspection, on which it was found that the e-Way bill had expired on the previous date i.e., on 05.11.2021 at 12.00 AM and statement of the truck driver was recorded in Form GST MOV-01 and subsequently the vehicle along with the goods were directed to be stationed. Pursuant thereto, physical verification was carried out and a report was issued in Form GST MOV-04 wherein, no discrepancy was found in the description of goods and quantity mentioned in the invoice. Thereafter, an order of detention in Form GST MOV-06 and Show Cause Notice in Form GST MOV-07 were also issued in the name of the truck driver and personal hearing was fixed on 08.11.2021 at 04:30 PM. and an order of demand of tax & penalty has been passed u/s 129(3) of the Act and Form GST MOV-09 has been issued by Respondent No. 3 solely on the ground that the validity of the e-Way bill had expired. 7. and an order of demand of tax & penalty has been passed u/s 129(3) of the Act and Form GST MOV-09 has been issued by Respondent No. 3 solely on the ground that the validity of the e-Way bill had expired. 7. Thus, the only issue which needs consideration is that “whether mere expiration of e-Way Bill during the course of transportation could attract the wrath of Section 129, read with Rule 138 of the Act and Rules of 2017, and if at all, the same could attract penalty in terms thereof? Recently the issue at hand was decided by the Allahabad High Court, reported in 2022 VIL 340 Alh. The High Court after taking into consideration the fact and the circumstances in which the e-Way bill expired, held that “there is neither any intention to evade payment of tax nor any fraud nor any contravention of the Act, as valid documents were accompanying with the goods as required under the Act”. The aforesaid order was challenged by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the appeal of the State inter alia holding as “This Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court, which is correctly appreciated” (Refer: 2023 VIL 62 SC,). 8. In fact, the issue involved in this case was also considered by the Calcutta High Court 2023 VIL 370 Cal and the Court held as under: “12. The issue as to whether the authority were justified in imposing tax and penalty on the ground that at the time of interception, the valid period of the – way bill stood expired and came up for consideration before the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hanuman Ganga Hydro Projects Private Limited -vs- Joint Commissioner, State Tax Authority, Silliguri Circle and Another reported in 2022 (50 Tax.com.023) – 2022-VIL-484-CAL. It was held by the Coordinate Bench of this Court that since it is not a case of willful attempt on the part of the writ petition to evade payment of tax, the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the penalty were all set aside and quashed. 13. It was held by the Coordinate Bench of this Court that since it is not a case of willful attempt on the part of the writ petition to evade payment of tax, the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the penalty were all set aside and quashed. 13. In the present case also the e-way bill was valid up to May 2, 2022 and the vehicle of the Petitioner reached Silliguri on May 2, 2022 before the expiry of e-way bill but due to national holiday on May 3, 2022 at 3:20 AM, the vehicle was intercepted at Bakuabari which is about 16/17 kilometers from the destination. there is no other allegation against the petitioner. 14. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, this Court finds that there is no lack of bona fide on the part of the petitioner to state that there was willful misconduct committed by the petitioner while transporting the goods. 15. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Appellate Authority dated January 31, 2023 and the order passed by the adjudicating authority dated May 12, 2022 are set aside and quashed. 16 The petitioner paid the penalty, is entitled to apply for refund, which shall be considered by the appropriate authority within a period of 15 days from the date on which such application is made and refund be effected, if there are no other legal impediment.” 9. Admittedly; in the instant case, the revenue has not taken into consideration the fact that because of denial of permission to enter into Adityapur Industrial Area due to the festive season (Deepawali), the vehicle (Truck) was bound to stop for some time, as a result of which the validity of the e-Way Bill expired. It is also admitted fact that the truck was within 1 KM of the Industrial Area and not far, thus it is evident that the expiry of e-Way Bill due to aforesaid reason should not and cannot amount to intention of evasion of tax and therefore, no extent of penalty would arise. This Court in similar facts and circumstance in the case of Rivigo Services Private Limited Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. This Court in similar facts and circumstance in the case of Rivigo Services Private Limited Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. (W.P.(T) No. 4654 of 2019) vide order dated 13.06.2022 had quashed and set aside the order passed by the revenue and remanded the matter back to the authorities for fresh consideration. The relevant portion of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow for ready reference; “12. It is true that neither the State Tax Officer nor Appellate Authority has examined the plea raised by the petitioner based on GPS tracking report of the vehicle. The impugned orders have been passed without taking into consideration the explanation and defence taken by the petitioner in their reply before the Tax Officer in response to the show-cause notice under GST MOV 07. The State Tax Officer has only taken into consideration one of the plea that the driver was illiterate/semi-literate and did not realize the consequences of expiry of e-way bill. The impugned order also does not reflect due consideration of plea taken by the petitioner based on GPS tracking report of the vehicle. The impugned orders therefore have been passed without proper application of mind and without dealing with the contention raised by the petitioner. It suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. The statements made at para-11 of the counter affidavit by the respondent regarding the mismatch in the quantity of goods with the Invoices are not substantiated by the physical verification report issued by the department in Form GST MOV04 (Annexure-7). The impugned action has entailed penalty without due consideration of the plea raised by the petitioner and without proper application of mind. As such, both the orders passed by the State Tax Officer (Annexure10) dated 12th July, 2018 and the appellate order dated 26th July, 2018 (Annexure-14) are set aside. The matter is remanded to the State Tax Officer to consider the plea raised by the petitioner in its reply and the plea based upon the amended Rule 138(3) of JGST Rules, 2017 brought into force with effect from 7th March, 2018 by notification dated 30th March, 2018, in accordance with law. The Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioner if not encashed, be also returned to the petitioner in the aforesaid circumstances.” 10. The Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioner if not encashed, be also returned to the petitioner in the aforesaid circumstances.” 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order dated 08.11.2021 (Annexure-4) as well as order dated 26.05.2022 (Annexure-8), are hereby quashed and set aside, inasmuch as, there is neither any intention to evade payment of tax nor any fraud has been committed and valid documents were accompanying with the goods as required under the Act; save and except, the E-Way Bill which had expired by few hours and this Court cannot ignore the fact that the vehicle was intercepted very near to the Check-Post and as stated by the petitioner and not controverted by the Revenue that it was the festive season of Diwali. Accordingly, the petitioner had already paid the penalty; interest of justice would be sufficed by allowing the petitioner to claim for refund and if any such application for refund is preferred; the competent authority shall consider the same within a period of 8 weeks from the date on which such application is made and refund be effected, if there are no other legal impediment. 11. As a result, the instant writ application is, hereby, allowed. Pending I.A., if any, is also disposed of.