TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 102
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the learned Respondent Authorities to forthwith release goods along with vehicle No. RJ23 GC 1469 detained/seized in purported exercise of powers under Section 129 of the GST Acts; (d) Issue any other Writ, Order or Direction in favour of the Petitioner which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case;" 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: 3.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a buyer of the goods (Arecanuts) sold by one M/s. Himachal Traders. 3.2 It is the case of the petitioner that the conveyance carrying the goods purchased by the petitioner was accompanied with Tax Invoice No. 008 dated 03.09.2024 along with E-way Bill No. 1619 30937638 generated on 03.09.2024, valid up to 14.09.2024. 3.3 It is also the case of the petitioner that the consignment was intercepted by respondent No.5 on 05.09.2024 at Rangpur and statement of the driver was recorded in FORM GST MOV-01 and it was also recorded that the goods were being transported from Delhi to Bengaluru. 3.4 Respondent No.5 thereafter passed an order for physical verification/ inspection of the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of natural justice as no notice was served upon the petitioner though in the impugned order passed in FORM GST MOV-11 it is mentioned that M/s. Himachal Traders has generated bogus E-way Bill to pass fraudulent Input Tax Credit without supply of the goods to the petitioner as vehicle location status mentioned in E-way Bill is different than the actual/genuine route. 4.1 It was submitted that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the goods in question and as the petitioner, in turn, has sold the goods to its customers therefore, the goods in question ought to have been released in favour of the petitioner on payment of fine and penalty by the respondent-authority. 4.2 It was further submitted that as the petitioner was not heard by issuing notice in FORM GST MOV-10, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. 4.3 Learned advocate Mr. Gupta also referred to and relied upon Rule 142 of the GST Rules which provides for issuance of notice by the proper officer and a summary electronically in FORM GST DRC-01 which was never served upon the petitioner. 4.4 It was further submitted that thus, there is a violation of Rule 142 of the GST Rule read with sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r submitted that the Supplier-Himachal Traders had supplied goods in contravention of the provisions of this Act and therefore, service of notice to the said supplier is sufficient to invoke the provisions of Section 130. 15. It is further submitted that when the owner of the goods has been given sufficient opportunity to reply to MOV 10 by issuance of notice and the reminder thereafter, now it cannot be alleged by the Petitioners herein that there is violation of provision of section 130 of the GST Act. 16. It 1s further submitted that subsequently since no reply was filed an order in Form GST MOV 11 dated 01.10.2024 was passed which is attached at Annexure A to the impugned petition. 17 It is submitted that on 15.10.2024 after passing an order in Form GST MOV 11, the petitioner herein wrote an email to the answering Respondent which is attached herewith ae ANNEXURE R&. Along with the said Email a PDF document was also attached dated 09.10.2024 in which the petitioner requested the answering respondent to create a temporary ID and further, referred to Circular no. 76 dated 31.12.2018. It was submitted that the Petitioner being a recipient of goods {s to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istration of M/s. Himachal Traders was also cancelled on 23.09.2024 and therefore, a show-cause notice could not be served. 5.4 Learned AGP Ms. Shah also referred to statement of driver of the conveyance at Annexure R1 to the affidavit and submitted that as per the said statement recorded on 05.09.2024, the driver of the conveyance has stated that he was asked to load the goods (Arecanuts) from Delhi and bring it to Ahmedabad and accordingly, he was travelling from Delhi to Ahmedabad. It was therefore, submitted that the contention of the petitioner, that the goods were to be supplied at Bengaluru, is therefore, incorrect in view of the statement of the driver of the conveyance recorded by the respondent-authority. It was therefore, submitted that no interference may be made by entertaining the petition as the transaction which is the subject matter of this petition is a bogus transaction with issuance of bogus tax invoices and the E-way bill between the parties. 6. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the facts of the case we are not inclined to entertain this petition in view of the alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitio....