Ms Burnpur Polyfabs PVT LTD Through Its Managing Director Mr Bimal Kumar Naredi vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Burnpur Polyfabs Pvt. Ltd., a company registered in West Bengal, dispatched goods on 31.08.2021 under an e-way bill valid until 01.09.2021. The truck carrying the goods was intercepted in Jharkhand on 01.09.2021 by State Tax Officers. It was found that the e-way bill had expired. The driver's statement was recorded, and the vehicle and goods were detained. A physical verification revealed no discrepancy in the goods' description or quantity. Despite the petitioner being the owner, the proceedings were initiated against the truck driver. The petitioner paid a total demand of Rs. 5,51,808/- in tax and penalty for the release of the truck and goods. The petitioner contends that the proceedings were initiated without any finding of tax evasion or contravention of the GST Act, and that the State Tax Officer lacked jurisdiction for an inter-state transaction.

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. Consequently, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority against the impugned order passed in Form GST MOV-09. The Court directed the State Taxes Officer to provide the GSTIN number to the petitioner for online appeal filing. If an online appeal is not accepted due to technical reasons, the petitioner is at liberty to file a manual appeal. The petitioner is permitted to raise all issues of fact and law before the appellate authority, which will decide the matter in accordance with the law. The Court explicitly stated that it has not gone into the merits of the case. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the State Taxes Officer had the jurisdiction to carry out proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017, for an inter-state transaction falling under the IGST Act, 2017, particularly when the officer is not a 'Proper Officer' under the CGST Act, 2017, as per Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017. 2. Whether the detention of goods and imposition of tax and penalty under Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017, is justified solely on the ground of an expired e-way bill, in the absence of any intention to evade tax or contravention of the Act's provisions. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the State Tax Officer lacked jurisdiction for inter-state transactions, which should be governed by the CGST Act and IGST Act, with proceedings to be carried out only by the 'Proper Officer' under the CGST Act. They also contended that an expired e-way bill alone, without evidence of tax evasion, should not attract Section 129 penalties, especially when genuine e-way bills were available during transit from the originating state until interception. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that an efficacious remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the JGST Act and that the dispute involves questions of fact, thus the writ petition should not be entertained.