Detention order under GST Act quashed for lack of clarity, petitioner's release ordered.

The court found the detention order issued under Section 129 of the Goods and Services Tax Act unsustainable as it lacked clarity on the contraventions and essential details. The incomplete and vague nature of the order led to its quashing, with the court directing the immediate release of the vehicle. The petitioner was not relegated to statutory remedies due to the deficiencies in the order, emphasizing the necessity for proper justification in detention orders to prevent prejudice to the assessee.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to FORM GSTMOV-06 issued by State Tax Officer on various grounds.

Analysis:

1. Detention Order Validity:
The petitioner challenged the detention order issued under Section 129 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The order was issued due to discrepancies found during the inspection of goods in transit. The court noted that the detention or seizure of goods and conveyances is allowed only when there is a contravention of the Act or Rules. The order of detention must clearly state the reasons for the seizure, which was lacking in this case.

2. Incomplete Order:
The court observed that the impugned order, Form GST MOV-06, was incomplete and did not specify the statutory provision or rule contravened by the petitioner. The order did not provide details of the alleged contraventions, making it unclear why the goods and conveyance were detained. The court emphasized that detention is a serious step that requires proper justification in the order, which was missing in this case.

3. Mistake in Lorry Number:
One of the reasons assumed for the detention was a mistake in mentioning the lorry number. However, the court highlighted that detention based on such errors should be justified clearly in the order. The Proper Officer should have explicitly mentioned the contravention in the order, which was not done in this case. The extreme step of detention should be supported by specific details in the order to prevent prejudice to the assessee.

4. Legal Remedy:
Although the Act provides for appeals or revisions against decisions or orders, the court decided not to relegate the petitioner to the statutory remedy due to the incomplete and non-speaking nature of the impugned order. Any appeal filed by the petitioner would require assumptions about the contraventions, as the order did not specify them. Therefore, the court quashed the detention order and directed the immediate release of the vehicle.

5. Conclusion:
In conclusion, the court held that the detention order was unsustainable due to its incomplete and vague nature. The lack of clarity regarding the contraventions and the absence of essential details in the order led to its quashing. The court allowed the writ petition, ordering the release of the vehicle and closing the connected miscellaneous petitions without costs.

---