https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441714 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. en-us Wed, 09 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Aug 2025 14:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441714 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. Case-Laws GST Wed, 09 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441714