Court Quashes Orders, Recognizes Petitioner as Owner Based on 31.12.2018 Circular; Authorities' Actions Deemed Unsustainable.

The Court quashed the impugned orders and allowed the writ petition, directing the respondent to recognize the petitioner as the owner of the goods. The decision was based on the Circular dated 31.12.2018, which mandates treating either the consignor or consignee as the owner if accompanied by specified documents. The Court emphasized the binding nature of circulars and found the authorities' actions unsustainable, given the lack of discrepancy in the goods' quantity and the petitioner's status as both consignor and consignee. The judgment aligns with precedents, including M/s Riya Traders v. State of U.P.

---

---

Issues:
Petitioner seeking writ of certiorari to quash impugned orders, mandamus to treat petitioner as owner of goods, challenge to order passed under Section 129(3) of the Act, interpretation of Circular dated 31.12.2018, denial of petitioner's ownership status, reliance on judicial precedents, binding nature of circulars, failure to deny specific pleadings in counter affidavit.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a GST-registered company engaged in goods related to Air Pump, Gas Compressor, Fans, and Ventilators, sought relief through a writ petition challenging the detention of goods during transit from Orissa to Kanpur due to an error in the e-way bill regarding the delivery place. The petitioner contended that despite meeting all necessary documentation requirements, the authorities failed to recognize them as the owner of the goods, as per the Circular dated 31.12.2018, which deems either the consignor or consignee as the owner if accompanying specified documents.

The petitioner argued that the circular should bind the authorities, citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Arviva Industries (I) Ltd. The petitioner emphasized that the authorities should have considered them as the owner of the goods, especially when there was no discrepancy in the quantity of goods during physical verification. Additionally, the petitioner relied on the judgment in M/s Riya Traders v. State of U.P. to support their claim of ownership status.

The respondent, represented by the Standing Counsel, supported the impugned order based on the discrepancy in the e-way bill regarding the delivery place. However, the Court, after perusing the records, found that the petitioner, being both the consignor and consignee in the stock transfer, should have been treated as the owner of the goods, as per the Circular dated 31.12.2018. The Court highlighted that the circular was not denied by the respondents and emphasized the binding nature of circulars on authorities.

In light of the legal principles and precedents discussed, the Court concluded that the impugned orders were unsustainable in law and proceeded to quash them. The writ petition was allowed, directing the concerned respondent to consider the petitioner as the owner of the goods within a specified timeframe, in accordance with the Circular dated 31.12.2018 and the judgment in M/s. Riya Traders.

---