2023 (8) TMI 693 - HC - GST

Assistant Excise Officer Authorized Under Sections 129-130 CGST Act to Detain Vehicles for Tax Evasion

M/s Bright Road Logistics Versus State of Haryana and others

The HC held that the Asstt. Excise and Taxation Officer was a Proper Officer authorized under Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with the ... Jurisdiction - Asstt. Excise and Taxation Officer (Enf.) Gurugram was a ‘Proper Officer’ or not - power of to inspect and detain vehicle as well as goods - vehicle carrying goods for inter-State transportation from Tamil Nadu to Delhi - authority to pass an order under Section 129 and 130 of GST Act, 2017 read with provisions of IGST Act, 2017. Whether the Asstt. Excise and Taxation Officer (Enf.) Gurugram was a ‘Proper Officer’ and was authorized to inspect and detain the vehicle which was carrying goods for inter-State transportation from Tamil Nadu to Delhi and was further authorized to pass an order under Section 129 and 130 of GST Act, 2017 read with provisions of IGST Act, 2017? - HELD THAT:- Since the vehicle was transporting the goods inter-State, therefore, the provisions of IGST Act, 2017 as well the provisions of GST Act, 2017 in so far applicable in view of the provisions of Section 20 of the IGST Act, are applicable to the facts of the present case - In view of the said enabling provisions under Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017, the provisions of Chapter XIV of GST Act, 2017 which deals with inspection, search, seizure and arrest and power of inspection, search and seizure (Section 67 and 68 of CGST Act, 2017) are applicable to the inter-State supply of goods. Apart from the enabling provisions under the IGST Act, 2017, the Commissioner of State Tax, Haryana had issued the order dated 07.12.2017 (Annexure P-46) exercising the powers conferred under sub-section 1 of Section 5 read with clause 91 of section 2 of Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 assigning the functions to be performed under the said Act by a Proper Officer. As per entry of Sr. No.51, 52 and 53 of the said order, the Asstt. Excise and Taxation Officer of State Tax has been assigned the functions to be performed under Section 129 (1) and (3); 129 (6); and Section 130 of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Section 129 and 130 of the said Act is having the similar provisions as under the said sections of IGST Act, 2017. In view of the enabling provisions of Sections 20 and Section 4 of the IGST Act; as well as the order dated 07.12.2017 (Annexure P-46) passed by the Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Haryana, assigning the functions to the Proper Officer under the Haryana Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, we are of the considered opinion that the Asstt. Excise and Taxation Officer of State Tax is competent and authorized to exercise the powers under Section 129 and 130 of the IGST Act, 2017. Thus, the Asstt. Excise & Taxation Officer of State Tax was authorized to Act as a Proper Officer and was having the authority to act under Section 129 and 130 of the IGST Act. Whether the impugned order dated 26.11.2018 (Annexure P-1) is liable to be quashed? - HELD THAT:- As per Rule 138, if value of the goods is more than Rs. 50,000/-, it is mandatory for a registered person to upload the information on the common portal and generate a unique number and even, the transporter can generate the said unique number from the said portal by uploading the information when the transporter receives an authorization from a registered person. Generation of the said unique number by way of generating e-way bill provides authenticity to the movement of the goods and also provides the information as to whether, the registered person had included the taxes in the ‘value of supply’. Whether, the provisions of Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act, 2017 are attracted. Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 provides for detention, seizure and release of the goods, whereas, Section 130 of the said Act provides for confiscation of the goods or conveyance and levy of penalty? - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the payment was not made, as such the Proper Officer was authorized to initiate the proceedings under section 130 of the Act for confiscation of the goods or conveyance and for levy of penalty. Apart from this, the provisions of section 130 of the Act provides that where any person supplies any goods in contravention of any provisions of the Act or the Rule made therein with an intention to evade the tax, he is liable to be proceeded under section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017. ‘Intention to evade payment of tax’ is an essential ingredient, for initiating proceedings against a person under section 130 of the said Act. In the present case, the petitioner had tried to reuse the e-way bills and the tax invoices, as such the intention to evade the payment of tax is impliedly proved on record. Hence, the order passed by the Proper Officer under Section 129 as well as under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with the provisions of IGST Act, 2017 is legal and valid and has been rightly upheld by the appellate authority. The appellate authority has properly dealt with all the submissions made by the appellant and has passed a well reasoned order. There is no scope for interference and to invoke the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. Petition dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Competency of the Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer (Enforcement) Gurugram to inspect and detain the vehicle carrying goods for inter-State transportation and to pass orders under Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act, 2017 read with the IGST Act, 2017.2. Validity of the impugned order dated 26.11.2018.Summary:Issue 1: Competency of the OfficerThe appellate authority upheld the competency of the Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer (Enforcement) Gurugram as a 'Proper Officer' under Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act, 2017 read with the IGST Act, 2017. It was noted that the officer was authorized under Section 4 of the IGST Act, 2017 and Section 6 of the CGST Act, 2017 to enforce provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 and IGST Act, 2017. The court supported this view, referencing the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016, which enabled cross-empowerment of state authorities for inter-State trade enforcement. The court confirmed that the Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer of State Tax was competent to act under Sections 129 and 130 of the IGST Act, 2017.Issue 2: Validity of the Impugned OrderThe petitioner contended that the vehicle was transporting inter-State goods with proper invoices and e-way bills, and thus, the detention and confiscation were illegal. However, discrepancies were found in the documents during inspection. The appellate authority and the court observed that the goods were not covered with genuine documents, indicating an attempt to evade tax. The petitioner's documents did not match the actual movement of goods, and the reuse of documents suggested a mala-fide intention to evade tax. The court found that proper procedures were followed, including issuing show cause notices and providing opportunities for the petitioner to respond. The court concluded that the actions taken under Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act, 2017 were justified due to the petitioner's attempt to evade tax.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the appellate authority's decision and the legality of the orders passed under Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer was deemed competent to inspect, detain, and pass orders regarding the inter-State transportation of goods. The court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and upheld the imposition of tax and penalties for the attempted tax evasion.