Court allows respondent to reissue notice, conduct new hearing, and provide detailed order on penalty levy. Writ petition granted, impugned order quashed, no costs. Process completion in 6 weeks.

The court granted liberty to the respondent to issue a fresh notice, conduct a new hearing, and deliver a speaking order regarding the penalty levy due to discrepancies in documentation. The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and no costs were imposed on either party. The court mandated completion of the process within six weeks from the judgment date, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order of State Tax Officer for penalty refund due to errors in notices and non-speaking orders.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested the order of the State Tax Officer seeking a refund of penalty amounting to Rs. 1,82,860 due to errors in the notices and non-speaking orders. The petitioner argued that both the order and the notices leading to it were flawed, lacking essential details like the date and time of hearing. The show cause notice was particularly deficient, with blank fields and a lack of reasoning in the 'speaking order' section, indicating a clear absence of proper consideration by the authority.

Despite the deficiencies in the notices and the impugned order, the statement of the driver recorded in Form-GST MOV-01 highlighted a discrepancy in the goods' destination. The goods were supposed to move from Chennai to Ambur, but the E-Way bill delivery address mentioned Bhosari, Maharashtra, creating a prima facie inconsistency. Additionally, the delivery challan and the detention order under Section 129(3) of the Act provided further evidence regarding the consignment's destination.

Considering the apparent discrepancy in the documentation, the court decided to grant liberty to the respondent to issue a fresh notice, conduct a new hearing with the petitioner, and deliver a speaking order regarding the penalty levy. This process was mandated to be completed within six weeks from the date of the judgment. As a result, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and no costs were imposed on either party. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed as part of the judgment.

---