GST transit interception jurisdiction upheld where transport documents misstate a registered supplier and challan defects indicate suppression.

State tax officers may intercept and detain goods in transit within West Bengal where valid departmental empowerment covers movement into, within, out of, or through the State, and interception occurs within territorial jurisdiction. Where transport documents describe a registered supplier as an unregistered person, and the delivery challan is not validly executed under Rule 55 because it is signed by the driver rather than the consignor or authorised representative, the authorities may treat the discrepancy as deliberate suppression rather than a bona fide error. On those facts, detention and penalty under the West Bengal GST Act were sustained, and the writ challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the West Bengal State Tax authorities had jurisdiction to intercept and detain goods in transit through the State; (ii) Whether describing a registered supplier as an unregistered person in the e-way bill and presenting a delivery challan signed by the driver rendered the consignment liable to detention and penalty under section 129 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Issue (i): Whether the West Bengal State Tax authorities had jurisdiction to intercept and detain goods in transit through the State.

Analysis: The consignment was moving from Jharkhand to Meghalaya through West Bengal and was intercepted within West Bengal. The authority relied on the departmental notifications empowering State tax officers to carry out enforcement activity in respect of movement of goods into, within, out of, or through the State, provided interception occurs within the relevant territorial jurisdiction. On that basis, the interception and detention were treated as falling within jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional challenge was rejected and the interception and detention were held to be within authority.

Issue (ii): Whether describing a registered supplier as an unregistered person in the e-way bill and presenting a delivery challan signed by the driver rendered the consignment liable to detention and penalty under section 129 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The record showed that the petitioner was a registered taxable person, yet the e-way bill and delivery challan projected him as an unregistered person. The Court treated this as a deliberate suppression rather than an inadvertent error, since the documents originated from the petitioner's end and the GSTIN of the supplier was available. The delivery challan was also found not to be validly executed under Rule 55 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, because it was signed by the driver and not by the consignor or an authorised representative. The plea that the driver was an authorised representative was rejected on the materials, and the Court also noted that reasonable opportunity of hearing had been afforded before adjudication.

Conclusion: The detention and penalty were upheld and the challenge on merits failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be without merit, and the orders of detention, penalty and appellate affirmation were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In transit interception under the GST regime, jurisdiction exists where the statute or valid departmental empowerment authorises enforcement within the territorial limits, and concealment of a registered supplier's identity in transport documents together with an improperly executed delivery challan can justify detention and penalty when the surrounding circumstances indicate suppression rather than a bona fide error.

---