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

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 IGST Act, 2017, to inspect, detain, and pass orders on a vehicle carrying goods in inter-State transit. The officer's actions complied with statutory provisions and the Commissioner's delegation order. Since the petitioner failed to pay tax and attempted to reuse e-way bills and tax invoices, there was an implied intention to evade tax, justifying confiscation and penalty under Section 130. The impugned order was upheld as legal and valid. The appellate authority's decision was well reasoned, leaving no ground for interference under writ jurisdiction. The petition was 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 Officer
The 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 Order
The 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.

---