Ms Rimjhim Ispat Limited Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr Bhaskar Bajpayi vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 107 of the JGST Act. The petitioner had already availed of this remedy by filing a manual appeal, which was reportedly kept dormant by the Department. Citing a previous order in W.P.(T) No. 1823 of 2021, the Court disposed of the writ application. The Court directed the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Dhanbad Division, Dhanbad, to dispose of the manually filed appeal expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court clarified that the appellate authority should decide the appeal based on the grounds presented in the manually submitted memo of appeal. The Court explicitly stated that it had not gone into the merits of the case of the parties.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Rimjhim Ispat Limited, dispatched stainless steel rods on February 4, 2021, with a valid e-way bill. The vehicle was inspected in Jharkhand, and the e-way bill was found to have expired on February 10, 2021, after the vehicle entered the state. The driver's statement was recorded, and the vehicle and goods were detained. A notice was issued proposing tax and penalty of Rs. 19,61,100/- due to the expired e-way bill, without a finding of tax evasion. An order imposing this amount was passed on February 15, 2021, by the Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes, Intelligence Bureau, Dhanbad. The petitioner filed a manual appeal, and was later advised to file online. This writ petition challenges the proceedings and the order.

Key Issues

1. Whether an Officer of the State Taxes could carry out proceedings under Section 129(1) and (3) of the CGST Act, 2017, for an inter-state transaction, when such officer is not the proper officer under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, in view of Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the order dated 15.02.2021, imposing tax and penalty of Rs. 19,61,100/-, is liable to be quashed and set aside, as it was passed on the ground that the E-way Bill had lost its validity without any finding of evasion of tax? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the State Taxes Officer was not the proper officer for inter-state transactions under the IGST Act and that the penalty was imposed without a finding of tax evasion. The petitioner also argued that the order was liable to be quashed. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue. However, it notes that the petitioner is not pressing prayer (a) in light of the counter affidavit filed by the State. The Court also referred to a previous order in W.P.(T) No. 1823 of 2021 concerning the availability of an alternative remedy.