AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1152
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vehicle was not an authorized person to sign and execute the delivery challan as a proper agent of the appellant. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal. Before rendering any decision on the issues raised by the appellant in this appeal, a brief narration of the facts is imperative for a better understanding of the case. 5. The conspectus of the facts with which we are concerned is that the appellant, an individual operating the business as a sole proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. N.S. Construction from Jharkhand, is engaged in the business of leasing and/or providing rental services of construction machinery and equipment, with or without persons to operate the same, as per the requirement of the customer. 6. The appellant is a duly registered entity under the provisions of the Jharkhand GST Act, 2017. 7. During the course of his business, the appellant received a work order for providing hydraulic excavator with driver on rental basis from one M/s. B.C.C., Buildtech Private Limited (hereinafter BCC) company registered in Haryana. 8. The hydraulic excavator was to be supplied by the appellant to the wo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order of the appellate authority dated February 29, 2024 that was assailed by the appellant in WPA No. 635 of 2024. 13. The learned Judge upon consideration of the facts of the case and the provisions of law proceeded to affirm the order of the appellate authority and dismiss the writ petition on July 4, 2025, thereby confirming the order of penalty. 14. It is this order of July 4, 2025, that has been assailed before us. 15. Mr. Bhattacharya, appearing for the appellant, has raised two issues. The issues may be summarized as under:- i. On the first issue, the contention of the appellant is that the description of the appellant as an unregistered person (URP) in the e-way bill was nothing beyond a ministerial act and thereby a mistake. This was an inadvertent error which had occurred on the part of the appellant. To further this point, he submitted that the appellant did not have any intent to avoid payment of taxes as alleged by the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority. Thus, the finding of both the adjudicating and the appellate authority were completely misguided and ought to be set aside. It is not disputed that the appellant had indeed made a de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs., passed in Civil Appeal No. 9764 of 2025. 16. Mr. Das for the state and Mr. Singhania for the Union of India have also made their submissions. The submissions of both parties are on a similar line and summarized hereunder:- i. The entire GST regime includes the state GST or the union territory GST and the central GST as well as the IGST Act. Thus, an officer authorized under the Central GST Act is entitled to act as a proper officer of WB GST or even the IGST Act. In the same manner, an authorized officer of the State GST Act is entitled to act as a proper officer under the Central GST or IGST Act. There is, thus, no necessity for issuance of notification under Section 4 of the IGST Act to specifically empower a state officer to act in terms of the said provision. The cross empowerment under Section 6 of the state as well as the Central Act becomes ipso facto applicable to the IGST. ii. Every officer has his own demarcated territorial jurisdiction to intercept a vehicle and check the documents of the vehicles plying through such officer's own territorial jurisdiction. If on inspection any violation is found by the proper officer, such an officer is empo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the issue of jurisdiction. According to the appellant, since West Bengal was merely a transport corridor and nothing beyond that, the authorities concerned who inspected the vehicle and inspected the documents were acting beyond their jurisdiction. This was primarily because the State of West Bengal could not be said to derive any revenue as the goods were being transported to Meghalaya. Thus, any loss, if it accrues, would be to the detriment of the state of Meghalaya and not in any manner concerned with the coffers of West Bengal. 21. The second plank of the jurisdictional aspect related to the authority of the officers who had inspected, as they were not empowered to cause such interception and inspection, given that the applicability of the West Bengal GST Act, 2017 was a far-flung idea, again, as West Bengal was merely a transport corridor. 22. In the event the question of maintainability is decided against the appellant, the appellant would not have much to fall back on. On merits, the appellant has in no uncertain terms and on several occasions unequivocally admitted that the e-way bill and challans referred to the appellant as a URP. This is nothing short of a false....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able, of any order passed by an officer appointed under this Act shall not lie before an officer appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act." 26. Section 4 of the IGST Act is also set out hereunder:- "Section 4. Authorisation of officers of State tax or Union territory tax as proper officer in certain circumstances. Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, the officers appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act are authorised to be the proper officers for the purposes of this Act, subject to such exceptions and conditions as the Government shall, on the recommendations of the Council, by notification, specify." 27. The two sections are almost a mirror reflection of each other. Section 6 deals with authorisation of officers of the State tax or Union Territory tax as a proper officer, while Section 4 deals with authorisation of officers appointed under the State Tax Act or Union Territory Tax Act as proper officer in certain circumstances. 28. Section 4 of the IGST Act unequivocally mandates that the officer appointed under the sai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or portion of West Bengal, it cannot be accepted that West Bengal was merely a transport corridor and the goods would not be used or sold in West Bengal. 33. Thus, it is clear and unambiguous that the authority had acted as a proper officer duly empowered in causing the inspection and detention of the goods, well within their jurisdiction without any infraction of law. 34. In so far as issue no. 1 raised by the appellant is concerned, it is indisputable that a declaration which was not correct had been made by the appellant. The appellant was a duly registered person and there was absolutely no way that he could have declared himself, being a regular businessman, as an unregistered person. 35. In so far as issue no. 2 is concerned, the driver, Umesh, was the agent of the carrier. The carrier was not authorized by the appellant and hence an agent of the carrier could not be construed or declared as an authorized signatory of the appellant. In fact, things went far south when the reply to the show cause notice was given by the chartered accountant of the appellant. In such a reply, the said chartered accountant has stated that the driver was merely carrying the machine on h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tes Private Limited (supra) was a case where the appellant had been imposed a penalty of Rs. 81 lakhs, which was modified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on the ground of the peculiar facts of that particular case, and it was specified that the same would not be treated as a precedent. Thus, the said case does not have any bearing on the case in hand. 41. The third case relied on by the appellant, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/s. ASP Traders (supra), was a completely separate issue where the payment by the delinquent person to obtain release of the goods was treated as absolving the authority from the need to pass a reasoned order and upload the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that not passing an order in the appeal resulted in frustrating the appellant's statutory right and hence was contrary to the established principles governing tax adjudication and procedural fairness. In the present case, this is not the issue, as the order had been duly passed by the appellate authority, even after the goods had been released from detention by the appellant upon payment of the requisite penalty and taxes. Hence, the said decision in ....