Jageswar Saw Vs Deputy Commissioner of Revenue (Calcutta High Court)
The Calcutta High Court dismissed an appeal challenging detention of an excavator and levy of penalty under Section 129 of the West Bengal GST Act, 2017, holding that incorrect declaration in transport documents and improper execution of delivery challan justified action by the tax authorities. The appellant, a registered proprietor engaged in leasing construction machinery, had purchased an excavator in Jharkhand for supply on rental basis to a worksite in Meghalaya. While the machinery was being transported through West Bengal, it was intercepted during routine inspection. On verification, authorities found that the appellant, though registered under GST, had generated the e-way bill as an Unregistered Person (URP) and the delivery challan was signed by the driver, who was not an authorized signatory of the appellant’s proprietorship concern.
The appellant argued that describing himself as a URP was merely an inadvertent clerical mistake, that the driver was competent to sign the delivery challan as agent during transit, and that West Bengal authorities lacked jurisdiction since the State was only a transportation corridor and the goods were destined for Meghalaya. The Court rejected all three contentions. It held that under the GST framework, cross-empowerment provisions under Section 6 of the CGST Act and Section 4 of the IGST Act authorize State GST officers to act as proper officers, thereby validating the West Bengal authorities’ jurisdiction to intercept and detain goods moving through the State.
