DAILY EXPRESS Vs. THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a transporter. When it was transported goods for a consignor, the Assistant State Tax Officer ("ASTO") intercepted those goods and detained them, along with the vehicle. He issued the Ext.P4 order for physical verification/inspection of the conveyance, followed by the Ext.P7 notice under Section 129(3). The reason assigned for the detention is this:

(2.) Later, the petitioner submitted the Ext.P8 explanation. But as the ASTO was not inclined to release the goods, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) Earlier, this Court disposed of the matter reckoning that the petitioner and the respondent authorities have consensually agreed that the goods be released on the petitioner's complying with Section 129(3) of the GST Act--by providing a bank guarantee. But Smt. Sujini, the petitioner's counsel, mentioned the matter and submitted that the petitioner never consented. It wanted to have an order on merits. So I recall the judgment, dated 01.11.2018.