The Calcutta High Court ruled that errors in an e-way bill and delivery documentation can lead to penalties under Section 129 of the GST law, even without proving intent. This decision came from the case between Jageswar Saw, a GST dealer from Jharkhand, and the Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax Bureau of Investigation (North Bengal). Saw, who was transporting an excavator to Meghalaya, was intercepted in West Bengal when authorities noticed that the e-way bill incorrectly listed him as an unregistered person. Additionally, the delivery challan had been signed by the driver, who was not authorized to do so.
The court addressed whether West Bengal authorities had jurisdiction to detain goods in transit and whether the documentation errors justified penalties. The court confirmed that GST law allows cross-empowerment under Section 6 of the CGST and Section 4 of the IGST Acts. This means state authorities can act on violations detected within their territory, even if goods are just passing through.
Read More: Bombay High Court: Consolidated GST SCN under Section 73 and 74 for multiple financial years may be valid if limitation requirements for each year are independently satisfied [Order attached]
The court emphasized that declaring oneself as an unregistered person when registered is a form of concealment and tax evasion, with intent being irrelevant in enforcement. The unauthorized signature on the delivery challan was considered a significant procedural lapse, undermining the transaction's authenticity. The claim that West Bengal was merely a transit state was rejected since the defective documents prevented verification of the destination, justifying the authorities' actions within their jurisdiction. The penalty imposed was deemed appropriate given the circumstances.
Order Date - 17 April 2026
Parties: Jageswar Saw (Proprietor – M/s N.S. Construction) Vs Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax Bureau of Investigation (North Bengal)
Union of India
Facts -
- Jageswar Saw, a registered GST dealer from Jharkhand, was engaged in renting construction machinery and received an order to supply an excavator to Meghalaya.
- While transporting the excavator through West Bengal, authorities intercepted the vehicle and found that the e-way bill wrongly declared him as an unregistered person (URP).
- The delivery challan was signed by the driver, who was not an authorized signatory, raising suspicion about document validity.
- Authorities detained the goods under Section 129 and imposed penalty, which was upheld by the appellate authority and Single Judge, leading to this appeal.
Issue -
- Whether West Bengal authorities had jurisdiction to detain goods in transit and whether errors in e-way bill and delivery challan justified penalty under GST law?
Order -
- The Court held that GST law provides cross-empowerment under Section 6 of CGST and Section 4 of IGST Acts. Even if goods are merely passing through a state, officers have authority to intercept and act if violations are detected within their territory.
- The appellant admittedly declared himself as an unregistered person despite being registered. The Court emphasized that such misdeclaration amounts to concealment and tax evasion, and intent (mens rea) is irrelevant in GST enforcement.
- The challan was signed by the driver, who was neither authorized by the appellant nor legally competent to act as signatory. The Court found this a serious procedural lapse, weakening the authenticity of the transaction.
- The claim that West Bengal was only a transit state was dismissed. Due to defective documents, authorities could not verify the destination, hence they were justified in acting within their jurisdiction.
