When GST Enforcement Crossed Its Natural Boundaries
In one of the most significant GST judgments delivered in recent times, the Allahabad High Court in M/s Maruti Enterprises v. State of U.P. and Another [2026-VIL-515-ALH dated 14.05.2026] delivered an extensive 34-page judgment examining the powers of GST authorities of a transit State during inter-State movement of goods. The controversy arose when consignments originating from States such as West Bengal, Assam, and Bihar, and destined for Delhi and Nagpur, were intercepted in Uttar Pradesh while merely passing through the State. The authorities detained the goods and imposed heavy penalties under Section 129 of the GST Act, primarily on the ground that the consignments were not accompanied by e-Invoices allegedly required under Rule 48(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Although the dispute initially appeared to concern only transportation documents, it soon escalated into a major constitutional and jurisdictional controversy over the extent of GST enforcement powers available to a transit State in inter-State trade.
The judgment ultimately evolved into an important reaffirmation of the constitutional protection available to free inter-State trade under Article 301 of the Constitution of India. It also clarified the scope of cross-empowerment provisions under the GST regime and held that such provisions cannot be expanded to create unlimited penal jurisdiction in favour of every State through which goods merely pass.
When Goods Merely Passing Through a State Created a National GST Controversy
Maruti Enterprises, a Delhi-registered dealer, had purchased dried Areca Nuts from a supplier registered in West Bengal. The goods were transported in a vehicle with a valid e-Way Bill and a physical tax invoice, travelling from West Bengal to Delhi, when intercepted by GST authorities in Gautam Buddh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
During physical verification, the authorities alleged that the goods were not accompanied by a valid e-Invoice as required under Rule 48(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017. According to the department, since the supplier's turnover exceeded the prescribed threshold, the issuance of an e-Invoice became mandatory, and the physical invoice accompanying the goods could not be treated as a valid invoice under Rule 48(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
The authorities also referred to alleged discrepancies in the registrations of the supplier and purchaser and, on that basis, detained the goods and imposed substantial penalties under Section 129 of the GST Act, 2017.
The Central Question Before the Court - Can a Transit State Impose Penalties?
The principal issue before the Court was not merely whether the supplier ought to have issued an e-Invoice. The larger question was whether the State of Uttar Pradesh had jurisdiction to impose penalties in respect of an inter-State transaction in which the goods originated outside Uttar Pradesh and were destined outside it.
The petitioners argued that although transit State authorities may inspect and verify goods moving through their territory, they cannot assume penal jurisdiction over transactions with no tax nexus to the transit State. According to them, no IGST, SGST, or CGST liability arose in Uttar Pradesh because the transaction was substantially related only to the originating and destination States.
The Revenue authorities, however, relied on Sections 6, 68 and 129 of the GST Acts read with Section 4 of the IGST Act and Rules 138A to 138C of the CGST Rules to argue that cross-empowerment provisions authorised State authorities to detain goods and impose penalties whenever violations of GST law were noticed during the movement of goods, even if the goods were merely transiting through the State.
The Court's Analysis of Sections 68 and 129 - Inspection Is Not Equal to Penal Jurisdiction
The Allahabad High Court closely examined the statutory framework governing the movement of goods under GST. It recognised that Sections 68 and 129 create a valid regulatory mechanism that empowers authorities to inspect goods in transit and verify accompanying documents to prevent tax evasion and ensure compliance with statutory requirements.
However, the Court drew a clear distinction between the power to inspect and the power to impose penalties. It was observed that inspection and verification are regulatory in nature, whereas detention and penalty proceedings carry serious fiscal consequences. Accordingly, although transit State authorities may stop vehicles, verify documents, and note discrepancies, the power to impose penalties does not automatically arise unless a taxable event or tax incidence exists within that State.
The Court further observed that the goods in the present cases admittedly originated outside Uttar Pradesh and were destined outside it. Since there was no allegation that the goods were intended for supply within Uttar Pradesh, no levy of IGST, SGST or CGST could arise merely because the goods passed through the State.
Cross-Empowerment Under GST - A Powerful Concept with Constitutional Boundaries
One of the most significant aspects of the judgment concerns the concept of cross-empowerment under GST. The Revenue relied heavily on Sections 6 of the CGST Act and 4 of the IGST Act to argue that State GST authorities are empowered to exercise powers under the Central GST and IGST laws as well.
While acknowledging that cross-empowerment is an important feature of the GST framework, the Court clarified that it operates only between Central and State GST authorities within the same State. It does not authorise the GST authorities of one State to exercise penal jurisdiction over transactions substantially connected with another State.
The Court illustrated this principle by explaining that if a taxpayer in West Bengal is administratively assigned to the Central GST authorities, the State GST authorities of West Bengal may still exercise their powers under statutory cross-empowerment. Similarly, Central GST authorities in Delhi may exercise powers over taxpayers assigned to the Delhi State GST authorities. However, such cross-empowerment does not authorise the GST authorities of Uttar Pradesh to impose penalties in respect of transactions substantially connected with West Bengal and Delhi.
The Supreme Court's Vision of Cross-Empowerment Under GST
While analysing the concept of cross-empowerment, the Allahabad High Court extensively relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Another [(2025) SCC OnLine SC 1700: 2025-VIL-63-SC], in which the Supreme Court discussed the concepts of “single interface” and “cross-empowerment” under the GST regime.
The Supreme Court recognised that GST was designed to avoid dual administrative control while ensuring effective enforcement powers in the hands of both Central and State authorities. However, the Allahabad High Court clarified that the discussion in Armour Security concerned cross-empowerment between Central and State authorities operating within the same State framework.
Accordingly, the decision in Armour Security does not support the proposition that GST authorities of one State may exercise penal jurisdiction over inter-State transactions merely because goods pass through their territory. The judgment was therefore harmoniously interpreted within its proper factual and statutory context.
Judicial Wisdom That Prevented GST from Crossing Constitutional Limits
The High Court also referred to G.K. Trading v. Union of India & Others [2020 SCC OnLine All 1907: 2021-VIL-12-ALH], which had earlier examined the scope of cross-empowerment under GST. Significantly, the Supreme Court subsequently approved the reasoning in G.K. Trading in Armour Security.
Relying on these earlier judicial discussions, the Allahabad High Court emphasised that GST enforcement powers must operate within territorial and statutory limits. Administrative coordination under GST does not mean that every State authority acquires unlimited jurisdiction over all inter-State transactions.
The Court further observed that permitting every transit State to independently penalise inter-State transactions merely because goods pass through its territory would seriously disturb the federal balance underlying the GST structure and create enormous uncertainty for trade and commerce.
Free Inter-State Trade Cannot Become a Casualty of Excessive GST Enforcement
One of the most important aspects of the judgment is its discussion on Article 301 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of inter-State trade and commerce. The Court recognised that such constitutional protection cannot be frustrated through unreasonable enforcement practices adopted by transit State authorities.
The Court held that if goods travelling from Kerala to Jammu and Kashmir were subjected to penalties by every transit State merely because a discrepancy was noticed in the documentation, the same consignment could face repeated detentions and penalties throughout its journey. Such a situation would seriously undermine the constitutional guarantee of free trade across India.
The Court therefore clarified that although reasonable regulatory measures are permissible, they cannot be converted into unrestricted penal powers in the hands of every transit State authority. The GST framework must always be interpreted in a manner that preserves the free movement of goods throughout the country.
The Crucial Difference Between Genuine Tax Evasion and Mere Transit Movement
The Revenue relied on several Supreme Court decisions, including State of Bihar v. Harihar Prasad Debuka [1989 (2) SCC 192 : 1989-VIL-38-SC], State of Rajasthan v. D.P. Metals [2002 (1) SCC 279: 2001-VIL-04-SC], and M/s ASP Traders v. State of U.P. [(2026) 2 SCC 641: 2025-VIL-52-SC], to justify detention and the levy of penalties by the transit State authorities.
The Allahabad High Court, however, carefully distinguished these decisions, observing that they arose in materially different factual situations involving issues such as shortage of goods, genuineness of transactions, or actual tax implications within the concerned State.
In ASP Traders, for instance, discrepancies regarding the quantity of goods and the authenticity of transactions had arisen. Therefore, those decisions could not be mechanically applied to the present cases, in which the origin and destination of the goods were undisputed and no taxable event arose within Uttar Pradesh.Top of Form
When the Concept of 'Tax Payable' Defined the Limits of Penalty
The Allahabad High Court also relied upon the important Supreme Court judgment in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Officer [(1994) 4 SCC 276 : 1994-VIL-09-SC]. In that case, the Supreme Court had explained the meaning of the expression “tax payable”.
Using that principle, the Allahabad High Court reasoned that unless some tax becomes payable within the State, the very foundation for imposing a penalty collapses. Since no IGST, SGST or CGST liability arose within Uttar Pradesh in the present cases, there could not arise any valid penal proceedings under Section 129 in Uttar Pradesh.
This reasoning is particularly significant because it connects the authority's power to impose a penalty to the existence of an actual taxable event within its territorial jurisdiction. The judgment, therefore, prevents the power of detention from becoming an independent and unrestricted penal mechanism.
A Growing Judicial Consensus Against Unlimited Transit-State Powers
The Allahabad High Court also noticed that the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Golden Traders v. Deputy Assistant State Tax [2026 SCC OnLine AP 803 : 2026-VIL-318-AP] had already taken a similar view.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court had held that transit State authorities may inspect goods and report discrepancies, but cannot impose penalties in respect of inter-State transactions that originate and terminate outside the State. It was further observed that, where discrepancies are noted, the proper course is to communicate them to the authorities of the originating and destination States.
The Allahabad High Court substantially agreed with this reasoning and adopted a similar interpretation. This aspect is extremely important because it reflects emerging judicial consistency regarding the jurisdiction of transit State authorities under GST.
A Significant Protection for Purchasing Dealers
Another remarkable feature of the judgment is the protection granted to purchasing dealers in cases involving the non-issuance of e-Invoice.
The Court recognised that the obligation to issue an e-Invoice depends on the supplier's turnover. Such information is within the supplier's exclusive knowledge. The purchasing dealer may neither possess the means nor the legal ability to verify the turnover position of every supplier before entering into a transaction.
Accordingly, the Court held that where the physical invoice itself is genuine and the movement of goods is not disputed, the purchasing dealer cannot be penalised merely because the supplier failed to issue an e-Invoice. This observation brings a much-needed practical and commercial balance into GST enforcement.
When the Constitution Drew the Final Line for Federal-State Powers
The Allahabad High Court ultimately quashed all the penalty orders and directed the immediate release of the detained goods and vehicles. However, the real importance of the judgment lies far beyond the relief granted to the individual petitioners.
The decision carefully balances three important objectives of the GST framework. First, it recognises the legitimate power of authorities to inspect and regulate the movement of goods. Second, it preserves the federal structure of GST by preventing jurisdictional overreach by transit State authorities. Third, it protects the constitutional guarantee of free inter-State trade under Article 301.
Most importantly, the judgment reminds tax authorities that regulatory powers under GST must always operate within constitutional and statutory limits. A transit State may certainly verify documents and report discrepancies, but it cannot transform itself into a universal penal authority over every inter-State transaction merely because goods happen to travel through its territory. In that sense, this 34-page judgment is not merely about the detention of Areca Nuts or the absence of an e-Invoice. It is fundamentally about defining the constitutional boundaries of GST enforcement in a federal economy.
CAclubindia
