AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1535
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods in Form GST MOV-02 was issued and on July 14, 2025, a physical verification report in form GST MOV-04 was issued indicating therein that there was a difference of 1300 kgs. in the weight of the goods disclosed in the tax invoice and the actual weight of the goods found by the authorities at the time of physical verification. 3. On the same day i.e. July 14, 2025, summons under Section 70 of the said Act of 2017 was issued by the respondent no. 2 to the driver of the vehicle carrying the consignment directing him to tender written statement and to produce documents pertaining to the consignment. On July 17, 2025, an order of detention of consignment under Section 129(1) of the said Act of 2017 was passed. 4. Subsequently, on July 24, 2025, a show cause notice in form GST MOV-07 was issued by the respondent no. 2 to the petitioner thereby calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why penalty to the tune of Rs. 3,57,200/- under Section 129(1)(a) as well as penalty of Rs. 35,72,000/- under Section 129(1)(b) would not be imposed on the petitioner inter alia on the allegation that the existence of the petitioner's supplier was dubious and that the actual weight of the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....forward and sought release of the goods. It is submitted that the petitioner is in any case entitled to get the detained consignment released in its favour upon payment of penalty in terms of section 129(1) of the said Act of 2017 without prejudice to its rights to challenge the order impugned before the appellate authority. 9. In order to demonstrate that the petitioner is entitled to be treated as the owner of the consignment, Mr. Verma relies on the circular dated December 31, 2018, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs whereby it has been clarified that if the invoice or any other specified document is accompanying the consignment of goods, then either the consignor or the consignee should be deemed to be the owner. In support of his aforesaid contention, Mr. Verma also relies on a judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Sandip Kumar Pandey & Anr. vs. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Bureau of Investigation (South Bengal) Durgapur Zone, & Ors. (MAT 1088 of 2025 with IA No: CAN/1/2025 delivered on 07.08. 2025). Mr. Verma has also relied on a judgment of a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t page 55 of the writ petition) thereby attaching the tax invoice and e -way bill but no objection of the nature raised in the writ petition was put forth then. It is submitted that in the absence of any contemporaneous objection as regards non-affording of opportunity of personal hearing the stand now taken by the petitioner is clearly an afterthought and the same should not be countenanced. 15. Mr. Agarwal further submits that this Court should not interfere with the order impugned under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy in the form of an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the said Act of 2017. 16. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the material on record. 17. It is now well settled that existence of an alternative remedy does not bar entertainment of a writ petition if it can be demonstrated that the case with which the writ court has been approached falls within any of the four categories i.e, if there is violation of principles of natural justice or there is a case of infringement of fundamental rights or there is a challenge to the vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for their inward supplies were verified from the said E-way Bill portal and it was noticed that there is no inward E-way bill for goods. Further, as per statement of the driver, the supplier existence is dubious and requires further verification of procurement of goods as well as genuineness of suppliers is required. Considering above, it appears that the Supplier i.e. M/s. M/s. J J Traders [GSTIN: 18AXMPA5950C1ZM] Dhakiajuli, Tezpur, Assam-784110 is procuring and supplying dries areca nut procured from other source evading duty and reflecting under his own firm under the guise of their own GST credential and Bills. As such, a detailed verification is imperative to unearth further violations including tax evasion, in the interest of revenue." 20. This Court of the considered view that in view of the aforesaid findings and in view of the fact that this is neither a case of "no notice no hearing" nor can the order impugned and the act of the respondent GST authorities be said to be wholly without jurisdiction, this case does not come within the range of any of the four exceptions that can persuade this Court to exercise its highly prerogative writ jurisdiction under Artic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld be clear from paragraph 4 thereof that the Hon'ble Division Bench had applied the said circular since in the said case neither was the purchase done by the appellant before the Court in dispute nor was there any discrepancy as regards description of the goods. In the case in hand, the authority has doubted the existence of the supplier of the petitioner and has cited discrepancy in the weight of the goods. 26. Halder Enterprises (supra) was also not rendered in there was no case where the genuineness of the transaction of procurement of the goods by the person concerned from its supplier was doubted. 27. The legal principle that a final order in form GST MOV-9 must be passed only after granting the person concerned an opportunity of hearing, in support whereof the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of ASP Traders (supra) has been relied on by the petitioner, is salutary and binding. However, in the present case where admittedly a notice of hearing has been served upon the petitioner and where the petitioner's assertion that the petitioner was not heard despite being physically present has been contested and refuted by the respondents it cannot be said w....