Adjudication order quashed due to lack of hearing - Fresh orders to be issued after petitioner's opportunity

The court quashed the adjudication order under the CGST and SGST Acts due to lack of opportunity for the petitioner to be heard before the tax and penalty imposition. The court directed the authorities to issue fresh orders after hearing the petitioner, specifically addressing the issue of the e-Way Bill and providing reasons for the decision. The petitioner was allowed to seek release of goods by providing a bank guarantee for the detained amounts and was instructed to submit the writ petition and judgment copy for further action by the authorities.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge against Ext.P10 order of detention and Ext.P11 adjudication order under CGST and SGST Acts.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the detention order and subsequent tax and penalty imposition under CGST and SGST Acts, arguing that the grounds for detention were flawed as an e-Way Bill was actually available with the driver at the time of interception. The petitioner contended that Ext.P11 order confirming the tax and penalty was passed without granting an opportunity to be heard.

Upon hearing both parties, the court noted that the driver did not produce any e-Way Bill during detention, and the driver's statement supported this. The court acknowledged a prima facie justification for detention but emphasized the lack of opportunity for the petitioner to rebut the authorities' inferences before passing the tax and penalty order.

Consequently, the court quashed the Ext.P11 order and directed the 1st respondent to issue fresh orders within a week after hearing the petitioner. The new order must address the petitioner's claim of producing an e-Way Bill and provide reasons for the decision. The petitioner can seek release of goods by providing a bank guarantee for the detained amounts and must submit the writ petition and judgment copy to the 1st respondent for further action.

---