Ms Shivam Hi Tech Steels PVT LTD Through Its Authorized Representative Mr Nirmal Paswan vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court noted that an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the JGST Act. Therefore, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority against the impugned order passed under Form GST MOV 09. The Court directed the State Taxes Officer, Intelligence Bureau, Ranchi Division, Ranchi, to provide the GSTIN number to the petitioner so that an appeal can be preferred online. If the appeal is not accepted online due to technical reasons, the petitioner is at liberty to prefer a manual appeal before the appellate authority. The petitioner is also granted liberty to raise all issues of facts and law and all available grounds in the appeal, which shall be decided by the appellate authority in accordance with law. The Court explicitly stated that it has not gone into the merits of the case of the parties. No specific finding was given on the jurisdiction of the State Taxes Officer or the validity of proceedings based on an expired E-way bill, as these were to be decided by the appellate authority.

Facts

M/s Shivam Hi Tech Steels Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner) dispatched a consignment of Ferro Alloys and Ferro Titanium from Chhattisgarh to Jamshedpur on 30.01.2021, with a valid E-way bill. The truck was intercepted on 04.02.2021 in Jharkhand, after the E-way bill had expired on 03.02.2021. Despite no discrepancies found during physical verification other than the expired E-way bill, the State Taxes Officer, Intelligence Bureau, Ranchi Division, initiated proceedings under Section 129 of the GST Act, 2017. An order dated 15.02.2021 was passed imposing tax and penalty of Rs. 31,52,780/-. The Petitioner furnished a bank guarantee for the release of the truck and goods. The Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order, the jurisdiction of the State Taxes Officer for an inter-state transaction, and the imposition of penalty without a finding of tax evasion.

Key Issues

1. Whether a State Taxes Officer has the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017, for an inter-state transaction, which falls under the ambit of the IGST Act, 2017, and where the provisions of the CGST Act are to apply mutatis mutandis? 2. Whether the expiry of an E-way bill, in the absence of any intent to evade tax or contravention of the provisions of the Act, can attract the provisions of Section 129 of the GST Act, 2017, leading to the imposition of tax and penalty? Petitioner's arguments: - The State Taxes Officer lacks jurisdiction for inter-state transactions under Section 129 of the Act, as these fall under the IGST Act, and proceedings should be under the CGST Act. - The order imposing tax and penalty is bad in law as it was passed without any finding of tax evasion, solely on the ground of an expired E-way bill. - The E-way bill was genuine, and the expiry occurred during transit, without any intent to evade tax. Respondent's arguments: - The efficacious remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the JGST Act, and the dispute pertains to questions of fact, hence the writ petition should not be entertained.