1. Home

SGST High Court Cases

GST - Jurisdiction of State Tax officers – Inter-State transport of goods - State officers intercepted and initiated proceedings under Sections 129 and 130 of CGST Act, 2017 on the ground that the goods were grossly undervalued or that the goods do not match the description in the accompanying documents, or that the quantum of goods was higher than the quantity set out in the accompanying documents – Whether the State Tax authorities have no jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings under Section 129 or section 130, in relation to movement of goods under the IGST Act – HELD - The State officers appointed under an SGST Act can exercise jurisdiction under CGST Act only if the taxpayer has been administratively allotted to the State, and the State officer is appointed as the proper officer for that taxpayer; similarly, State officers can exercise jurisdiction under IGST Act only when the State is entitled to a share of the IGST tax under Section 17 of the IGST Act for that inter-state transaction. The State officers cannot exercise jurisdiction under IGST Act in relation to inter-state sales, which originate outside the State and culminate outside the State - Mere cross-empowerment under Section 6 of CGST/IGST Acts is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on State officers over inter-State transactions where the State has no fiscal interest - Further, State officers under Sections 129/130 cannot go into valuation or classification issues and can only detain/seize goods in case of clear evasion like absence of e-way bills or mismatch in goods. - The impugned orders passed by state officers are set aside and the goods are directed to be released, while the State officers are permitted to forward the discrepancies, if any, to the proper officers of the consignor and consignee for further action – In the present case, the State authorities in the State of Andhra Pradesh, have no jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings under Section 129 or section 130, in relation to movement of goods under the IGST Act – The proceedings initiated against the petitioners are set aside leaving it open to the respondents to forward their records etc. to the respective proper officers of the petitioners - The writ petitions are disposed of - Grounds for detention of goods - Merely because the manufacturer sells his products to its customer or dealer at a price lower than the MRP, as such cannot be a ground on which the product or the vehicle could be seized or detained – Further, undervaluation of a good in the invoice cannot be a ground for detention of the goods and vehicle for a proceeding to be drawn under Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 138 of the CGST Rules, 2017 – The questions of seizure or confiscation, would not arise before a proper officer, under Section 129 or 130, even in the normal course, on grounds of variation in valuation etc. - The goods, which have been seized or confiscated under various impugned orders, would require to be released.
Download File
show more Judgements  

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Kasi Viswanathan V

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

Changes in GST, IT & Cuss w.e.f. 1 Apr
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?