GST transit detention upheld where false e-way bill description and unauthorised delivery challan signatory justified enforcement.

State GST officers may intercept, inspect and detain goods within their territorial jurisdiction under the cross-empowerment scheme in the CGST and IGST laws, and West Bengal officers were competent to act when the vehicle was intercepted in transit. A false description of a registered dealer as an unregistered person in the e-way bill was treated as a false declaration rather than a clerical error, and the driver could not validly sign the delivery challan as the dealer's authorised signatory. On that basis, the transit documents were held unreliable, and detention and penalty were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State GST authorities had jurisdiction to intercept, inspect and detain the goods in West Bengal when the consignment was being transported from Jharkhand to Meghalaya; (ii) Whether the false description of the appellant as an unregistered person in the e-way bill and the use of the driver as signatory to the delivery challan invalidated the documents and justified detention and penalty.

Issue (i): Whether the State GST authorities had jurisdiction to intercept, inspect and detain the goods in West Bengal when the consignment was being transported from Jharkhand to Meghalaya.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of cross empowerment under Section 6 of the CGST Act and Section 4 of the IGST Act authorises officers appointed under the State tax law to act as proper officers for the purposes of the central and integrated tax laws, subject to notified exceptions and conditions. No contrary notification or restriction was shown. Since the vehicle was intercepted within West Bengal and the alleged contravention arose during transit within that territory, the officers were competent to act. The contention that West Bengal was only a transport corridor did not displace the territorial authority of the detaining officer.

Conclusion: The detention and inspection were within jurisdiction, and this issue is decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the false description of the appellant as an unregistered person in the e-way bill and the use of the driver as signatory to the delivery challan invalidated the documents and justified detention and penalty.

Analysis: The appellant was a registered person, yet the e-way bill and allied documents described him as an unregistered person. That misdescription was treated as a false declaration and concealment, not a harmless clerical error. The Court also held that the driver, being only an agent of the carrier and not the appellant's authorised signatory, could not validly execute the delivery challan on behalf of the appellant. In the setting of Rule 55 of the West Bengal GST/CGST Rules, 2017 and Rule 138 of the same Rules, the documents accompanying the movement were therefore not reliable proof of a lawful transit, and the authorities were justified in treating the transaction as involving tax evasion.

Conclusion: The detention and penalty were upheld, and this issue is decided against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was sustained in full, and the appeal did not merit interference.

Ratio Decidendi: State GST officers are competent to exercise interception and detention powers within their territorial jurisdiction under the cross-empowerment scheme, and a false declaration in transit documents coupled with an unauthorised execution of the delivery challan justifies detention and penalty under the GST regime.

---