SUBHAM FREIGHT CARRIERS INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, SURVEILLANCE SQUAD NO. 1, SGST DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges Exts.P11 and P12 notices issued by the 1st respondent as illegal and without jurisdiction. Ext.P11 is an order of detention made under Section 129 (1) of CGST Act, 2017 and Ext.P12 is a notice issued under Section 129 (3) of the Act. The petitioner contends that the subject matter of Exts.P11 and P12 is fully compliant with all the requirements of the Act and the petitioner was in a position to demonstrate within the time given by the authorities that Part B/E-Way Bill was also generated and produced for inspection. Therefore, the proceedings now initiated through Exts.P11 and P12 are not warranted and illegal.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader objects to the maintainability of the writ petition. Firstly, she contends that from the very admission made by the petitioner there is an omission or illegality in transportation of goods. The omission is that admittedly at the time of inspection or detention of goods the transporter could not produce all the documents required for establishing that the goods is under valid transit. The detention order cannot and could not be treated as final, for according to her section 129 deals with and provides for not only detention but also for release of goods, subject to the petitioner complying with the mandate of Section 129 of the Act. According to her, the petitioner if insists for the release of goods, the petitioner can furnish the bank guarantee for the tax and penalty amount demanded through Ext.P12 and the authority does not have difficulty in releasing the detained goods forthwith.

(3.) By way of reply, Sri.P.S Soman Pulladan submits that the petitioner since is confident that the transit of goods was strictly in accordance with the requirements of the law, the detention of goods is not warranted, the petitioner has no difficulty in furnishing the bank guarantee, but he states that the authority will not pass final orders in this behalf, resulting in the petitioner continuously keeping the bank guarantee alive. He further submits that the bank guarantee is also provided at substantial commission by the banker and for no reason the petitioner loses in the bargain.