TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1454
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dried areca nuts all over India. The petitioner also claims to be duly registered under the provisions of Central/Assam GST Act, 2017. It is also the petitioner's case that the petitioner in usual course of business had sold 34510 Kg of Dried Areca Nuts for a transaction value of Rs. 90,89,934/- to one M/s. Ansaar Traders situated in Chikkamagaluru, Karnataka on FOB basis. The said goods were accompanied with valid documents and was booked with the transporter namely M/s. Ajay Goods Carriers for being transported to M/s. Ansaar Traders at Karnataka. According to the petitioner, the E-way bills and the consignment note and the invoices also accompanied the goods from its place of loading in Assam. Unfortunately, the respondent no.2 had inter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 129(1) of the said Act. He has also placed reliance on a judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Vadodra v. Dhiren Chemical Industries reported in (2002) 2 SCC 127 in support of his contention that a circular issued by an authority is binding on the said authority. In the facts noted hereinabove he would submit that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order passed by the appropriate authority under section 129(3) of the said Act and permit the petitioner to seek release of the vehicle and the goods as the goods at the time of interception was accompanied by valid documents. 4. Mr. Agarwal, learned advocate appears on behalf of the CGST authorities. He would submit that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ods since the petitioner has disclosed the E-way bills and the tax invoices and other related documents, and ought to have returned the goods, I, however, I notice from the statement made by the driver as recorded in the order impugned that there is incongruity in the case made out by the petitioner especially having regard to the time of loading of the vehicle and the place of loading. It would also appear from the records that the petitioner could not produce or submit any payment particulars about the mode of transport of goods purchased by the petitioner. I also notice that the proper officer upon considering all aspects has noted that he has reasonable belief that the documents provided by the consignor do not substantiate the legitima....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or other related documents as the owner. The aforesaid case, in my view, is distinguishable on facts. No disputed question of fact arose in the said case. The point of maintainability on the ground of alternative remedy was also not raised in that matter. The only ground on which the goods had been detained was on the ground that the consignor consignee were declared as non-existent. Such is not the case here. The statement given by the driver has made the difference. The petitioner could not demonstrate that the order impugned is biased on no evidence or is perverse. Be that as it may, I am of the view, it shall not be appropriate to decide on a cause attaching the genuinity of ownership of the petitioner in the light of the findings arri....