Case Law Details
Bright Road Logistics Vs State of Haryana (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Introduction: Explore the legal analysis and implications of the notable case “Bright Road Logistics Vs State of Haryana” heard in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. This case delves into the imposition of tax and penalties due to the alleged misuse of e-way bills and tax invoices with mala-fide intentions to evade taxes.
Analysis: The case centered on the validity of the Detention by the Haryana SGST Officer as a Proper Officer for an interstate transaction. The key question was whether the Asstt. Excise and Taxation Officer (Enf.), Gurugram, had the authority to inspect and detain a vehicle transporting goods from Tamil Nadu to Delhi and to impose penalties under relevant sections of the CGST Act, 2017.
The court referenced Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017, which aligns the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 with those of the IGST Act, 2017, pertaining to inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests. Additionally, Section 4 of the IGST Act, 2017, empowered officers appointed under the SGST Act or UTGST Act to be Proper Officers under the IGST Act, 2017. The court noted that the Commissioner of State Tax, Haryana, had issued an order designating specific functions to be performed by a Proper Officer under the Haryana GST Act, 2017.
The court highlighted that the Asstt. Excise and Taxation Officer of State Tax possessed the authority, as per relevant provisions and the issued order, to exercise powers under Section 129 and 130 of the CGST Act, 2017. The court upheld the Appellate Order’s decision, emphasizing that the intention to evade tax was established by the petitioner’s reuse of e-way bills and tax invoices, leading to a legal and valid imposition of tax and penalties.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
The hon’ble judges who gave this judgment is same bench which took suo moto contingence of Nuh violence relently in Haryana and shunt by Hon’ble Chief justice PHHC as per news.
After reading the judgment it is not clear what was evidence relied by the hon’ble Court. Contradictory statement of truck owner and transporter is only evidence relied.
What is the fate of detained vehicle? Judgment is silent on it. Poor vehicle owner will loose his vehicle under section 130?
Is Court seeking / asking for E way billls for earlier two movement of goods of rice and tender coconut being Tax free goods in GST?
Fit case for SLP.