BRIGHT ROAD LOGISTICS Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel Sri. Vikram Huilgol accepts notice for the respondent. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.10.2019 passed under Section 129(1)(b) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

(2.) The petitioner is a transporter, registered under the provisions of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act for short) and is engaged in the business of transportation of goods across the different parts of the country. It is submitted that the petitioner was approached by M/s. Bhima Trading Company incorporated at #4/2018, Marmangalathupatty Steel Plant Main Road Salem, Tamil Nadu 636030 for transporting certain scrap goods to the consignee, M/s. Rajendra Traders incorporated at #105, Nangil Poona village, New Delhi 110036. Thus, the role of the petitioner was only a transporter to transport goods from Salem to New Delhi. Accordingly, the petitioner used its conveyance to transport and during the transit from Salem to New Delhi, the respondent intercepted the said conveyance bearing No.RJ14GH6541 on 02.10.2019 at 12.15 a.m. at Madavara, Tumkur Road, Bengaluru for verifying the genuiness of the transaction and the veracity of the accompanied documents. The driver of the conveyance has furnished the lorry receipts, E-way Bill and Tax Invoice. The respondent after examining the same arrived at a conclusion that the said goods are not originated from Tamil Nadu. The conveyance along with the goods was retained and an order was passed under Section 129(1) of the GST Act in Form GST MOV-09. The representation was submitted by the petitioner to release the goods along with the conveyance. However, the show-cause notice dated 11.10.2019 was issued to the petitioner under Section 129(1)(b) of the GST Act on the premise that the consignor is non-existent.

(3.) It is the contention of the petitioner that provisional objections were submitted to the said show- cause notice further seeking for an opportunity of hearing. However, the respondent has proceeded to pass the order impugned under Section 129(1)(b) of the Act holding that the petitioner has no locus to dispute or raise issue either on behalf of the consignor/consignee or the person in charge of the conveyance. Hence, the present writ petition.