TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 838
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing, respondent no.2, Assistant Commissioner , Mobile Squad, Bhognipur, Ramabai Nagar, Kanpur Dehat U.P. To release goods and vehicle seized vide seizure memo dated 23.3.2023 passed in GST MOV-06 forth with. D. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondent no.2 from emplying coercive measures to recovery penalty pursuant to order dated 27.3.2023 passed From GST MOV- 09." 2. Since the GST Tribunal has not yet been formed the present writ petition is being entertained against the aforementioned impugned orders. 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its business at 1,132, Cotton Street, Burrabazar, Kolkatta West Bengal. The petitioner in its normal course of business made inward supply of B55HM0003NA G-LEX HDPE-2 HSN 3901.20.00 15 from GAIL, Auraiya U.P. The petitioner also made inward supply of similar item from GAIL Auraiya U.P. for which two invoices dated 6.3.2023 were prepared, copies of which have been annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. For movement of goods from Auraiya Uttar Pradesh to Jalpa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ither any discripency in the items so transited nor in the quality and quantity of the goods. He further submits that there was no intention of the petitioner to avoid payment of tax. He further submits that the goods have been detained on the technical fault as the E-way bills have expired. 7. He further submits that pursuant to the notice as to under what circumstances the vehicle could not reach its destination before expiry of E-way bills which was valid upto 12.3.2023, the petitionere submitted its reply explaining the reason that due to medical exigency the driver fell ill and due to some breack down in the vehicle the goods could not reach its destination before 12.3.2023. He further submits that since the driver of the vehicle was not aware of GST law, he could not apply for extension of the E-way bills before its expiry. 8. He further submits that while passing the impugned order under section 129(3) of the Act only one line has been mentioned that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not acceptable. 9. He further submits that against the said order an appeal was preferred before respondent no.1 which has been rejected without considering the material on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in passing the imugned orders. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is admitted that goods of the petitioner transited from the State of Uttar Pradesh to the State of West Bengal and the goods were accompanied by requisite documents such as invoices, E-way bills, GR etc. as mentioned above. The E-way bills were valid upto 12.3.2023 whereas the goods have been intercepted on 14.3.2023. Thereafter proceedings were initiated only the ground that the goods were transited after expiry of the E-way bills. No other discripancy has been found either in quality, quntity or goods as disclosed in the invoices, E-way bills or GR. While rejecting the claim of the dealer the assessing authority has observed as under: 12. From a perusal of the aforesaid order the reply submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by only saying that the reply is not found to be acceptable. No other reason has been assigned for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 13. Further in appeal the appellate authority while rejecting the appeal has observed as under: 14. On perusal of the aforesaid order it has been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not be permitted to be raised at this stage as neither in the reply to the show cause notice nor before the appellate authority any submission was made. In view of the above, the judgment replied upon in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. (supra) has no aid to the petitioner. 19. Further since the petitioner has submitted its reply taking the stand that there was break down of the vehicle and the driver fell ill but no reason has been assigned by any of the authorities in the impugned orders for disbelieving the same. 20. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and since the authorities below have not recorded any findings with regard to the submissions made by the petitioner the impugned orders dated 27.3.2023 and 18.4.2023 as well as seizure memo dated 23.7.2023 could not be sustained in the eye of law and are hereby quashed. 21. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 22. The matter is remitted back to the respondent no.2. The parties are at liberty to adduce evidence in support of their claim within a peri of of 15 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the respondent no.2. The respondent is further directed to decide the....