Miss Pragya, a GST inspector, stopped a conveyance carrying goods worth ₹ 40,000/- from the state of Punjab to state of Rajasthan. It was stopped on the border area while entering the state of Rajasthan asking Nitin, in

According to Section 68 (1) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Government may require the person in charge of a conveyance carrying any consignment of goods of value exceeding such amount as may be specified to carry with him such documents and such devices as prescribed. According to Section 68(3), where any conveyance referred to in sub-section (1) shall be intercepted by the proper office at any place, he may require the person in charge of the said conveyance to produce the documents prescribed under the said sub-section and devices for verification, and the said person shall be liable to produce the documents and devices also allow the inspection of goods. Further, under Rule 138 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (Rules), the requirement of generating the E-way bill and carrying the same along with the goods in movement is applicable only when the value of the goods being transported, exceeds ₹ 50,000/-. Further under Rule 138B (1) of the rules, the Commissioner or an officer empowered by him in this behalf may authorize the proper officer to intercept any conveyance to verify the e-way bill in physical or electronic form for all inter-State and intra-State movement of goods. Also according to rule 138B(3) of the rules, the physical verification of conveyances shall be carried out by the proper officer as authorised by the Commissioner or an officer empowered by him in this behalf. Provided also that on receipt of specific information on evasion of tax, physical verification of a specific conveyance can also be carried out by any other officer after obtaining necessary approval of the Commissioner or an officer authorised by him in this behalf. In view of the above provision, it may be said that GST inspector Miss Pragya, if authorised under Rule 138B can intercept the vehicle and require the person in charge of the conveyance, Nitin, to produce the required documents and also take other necessary action as provided by this rule. Hence, Nitin's contention is not correct as far as interception of the conveyance is concerned. But his contention is correct that e-waybill is not necessary for goods valuing less than ₹ 50,000/- as far as documentation is concerned. Hence, Nitin's contention is incorrect that interception is not justified.