TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 720
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct 2017 or not, he replied that it had not been constituted as yet. By means of the impugned orders U.P.G.S.T. at the rate of 18% on the value of the goods seized during interception amounting to Rs. 2,08,800/- and equivalent penalty of Rs. 2,08,800/- has been ordered against the petitioner. Both the authorities below have held that the petitioner was not carrying the U.P. e-way bill on the date of interception of goods, hence the impugned action has been taken. The appellate authority has also held that the national e-way bill being carried with the vehicle at the time of conveyance was only for the purposes of trial at the relevant time and did not have any legal sanctity attached to it. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the relevant time there was no system of e-way bill in place and all other relevant documents were being carried. The transportation was bona fide as is also evident from para-7 of the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties wherein it has been mentioned that at the time of checking driver of the vehicle driver of the vehicle produced tax-invoice no. 135 of M/s Swastik Traders, Raipur, dated 15.2.2018 and bilty/co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....S.T. Act 2017 to mean the 'Central Government'. Now in the light of the aforesaid when we peruse the notice under section 129(3) which has been issued to the petitioner, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-3 to the petition, Page-32, and when we read this document with the verification report prepared at the time of interception of the vehicle of the petitioner on 19.2.2018 at 1.14 in the night at Lucknow, we find that the deficiency pointed therein for the purposes of proceeding under section 129(3) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017 is absence of e-way bill. In the counter affidavit it has been specifically stated that the petitioner was not carrying the U.P. State E-way bill. It is not the case of the opposite parties that the petitioner was not carrying any other document which may have been required to be carried, by a notification of the Government as an alternative arrangement under Rule 138 as referred hereinabove. We have already discussed the relevant provisions, therefore, considering the fact that it was a inter-State transportation of goods, the U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017 did not apply and it is the I.G.S.T. Act 2017 and by virtue of section 20(15) of the said I.G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "Cross-empowerment under section 4 of I.G.S.T. Act 2017 and section 6 of C.G.S.T. Act 2017 merely means that State Authorities empowered under the U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017 can also enforce the provisions of C.G.S.T. Act 2017 or I.G.S.T. Act 2017, but it does not mean that they can apply the provisions of U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017 or Rules made thereunder to cases of inter- State trade in violation of section 20(xv) of I.G.S.T. Act 2017. It does not mean that the State Government can issue a notification under Rule 138 of U.P.G.S.T. Rules made under U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017 to prescribe documents to be carried in an inter-state supply of goods and services regarding which only the Central Government has the power under section 20(xv) of I.G.S.T. Act 2017 read with section 68 of C.G.S.T. Act 2017 and Rule 138 of C.G.S.T. Rules 2017. The fact that the authorities under the State Act were empowered to exercise the powers under the C.G.S.T. Act 2017, assuming it to be so, is inconsequential, as, it is not their jurisdiction to exercise power of seizure which is under question, but, the manner in which they have exercised it on the basis of an inapplicable provision of law, as, they have pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rposes of pointing out that, although the power to prescribe the documents that are to accompany the transportation of goods in the course of interstate trade is conferred on the Central Government, the Central Government has, till date, not notified the documents that have to be carried by a transporter of the goods in the course of interstate movement. Under the said circumstances, and finding that neither the State Legislature nor the State Government would have the power to make laws/rules to govern interstate movement of goods in the course of trade, and for the purposes of levy of tax, I am of the view that detention in Ext.P.5, for the sole reason that the transportation was not accompanied by the prescribed documents under the IGST Act/CGST Act/CGST Rules, cannot be legally sustained. I therefore, allow the writ petition by making the interim order absolute." Furthermore, we find that alongwith the consignment of goods the driver was carrying an invoice which mentioned that the goods were being taken from the State of Uttarakhand to the State of West Bengal, therefore, as of now, it was an inter-State trade and there is nothing on record to show otherwise. The asse....