Court grants transporter right to dispute intercepted conveyance issues, quashes order denying locus standi.

The Court held that the petitioner, a transporter under the GST Act, had the right to dispute issues regarding the intercepted conveyance. The decision denying locus standi was deemed unjust and against natural justice principles. The Court quashed the order, directing the respondent to allow the petitioner to submit objections and to decide the matter promptly. The case was disposed of with instructions for a fair hearing and consideration of all objections.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 129(1)(b) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Locus standi of the petitioner to dispute or raise issues on behalf of consignor/consignee or person in charge of conveyance.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a transporter registered under the GST Act, was transporting goods from Tamil Nadu to New Delhi when the conveyance was intercepted by the respondent for verification. The respondent concluded that the goods did not originate from Tamil Nadu, leading to the retention of the conveyance and goods under Section 129(1) of the GST Act. The petitioner submitted representations seeking release, but a show-cause notice was issued under Section 129(1)(b) alleging the non-existence of the consignor. The petitioner contended that the decision that they lacked locus standi to dispute or raise issues was arbitrary and against natural justice principles.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent's decision on locus standi was illegal and arbitrary, violating natural justice principles. On the other hand, the revenue's counsel contended that the petitioner was neither the consignor nor consignee and that the release of the conveyance fell under Section 130(2)(iii), suggesting no mandatory penalty payment under Section 129(1)(b).

The Court held that the respondent's decision on the petitioner's locus standi was unjustifiable, as issuing a show-cause notice implied the right to file objections. The order was deemed against natural justice principles, a fundamental requirement for quasi-judicial authorities. The Court allowed the petitioner to file additional objections within ten days and directed the respondent to consider all objections and pass an expedited order in accordance with the law.

Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order, restoring proceedings to the respondent for a fair hearing. The respondent was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity for a hearing, consider all objections, and decide the matter promptly in compliance with the law. All rights and contentions of the parties were left open, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

---