2022 (4) TMI 1240 - HC - GST

Detention of goods alongwith the vehicle - section 129 (3) of the GST Act, 2017 - prayer for direction to respondents department for fresh inspection of goods - levy of penalty - HELD THAT - Upon sifting the entire documents produced including the order impugned, it reveals that the vehicle in question was carrying the goods in excess of the bilti as well as e-way bill which is evident from the operative paragraph of the appellate authority which finds mention at page no. 56 of the writ petition. Thus, the authorities under the statute were competent to carry out the inspection and upon inspection, the authorities found that the transportation was in violation of the statutory provisions contained in the Act, 2017 and the rules made thereunder and therefore, rightly passed the order of the penalty. Apparently, the entire foundation of the case is based on factual background and no question of law is involved in the matter. The petitioner has further failed to demonstrate as to what legal right of the petitioner has been violated and thus, since the issue involved with the petition is infact pertains to the decision based on facts and do not suffer from any contravention of any statutory provisions or non-compliance of the principle of natural justice. There are no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition so filed by the petitioner is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under section 129(3) of the GST Act, 2017; Challenge to appellate order under section 107 of the Act, 2017; Request for fresh inspection of goods in custody of respondent department.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order passed under section 129(3) of the GST Act, 2017, regarding a vehicle owned by them that was stopped by the respondent department. The inspection revealed discrepancies between the goods in the vehicle and the accompanying documents, leading to a penalty being imposed. The petitioner also appealed an appellate order under section 107 of the Act, 2017, which was subsequently dismissed.

The petitioner argued that a proper inspection should have been conducted as the driver did not possess all the required documents during the initial inspection. They requested the quashing of the impugned order and a fresh inspection of the goods in the vehicle. However, the respondents' counsel supported the orders passed by the authorities.

Upon reviewing the submissions and documents, the court found that the vehicle was carrying goods exceeding the documented quantity, as highlighted in the appellate authority's findings. The authorities were deemed competent to conduct the inspection, leading to the penalty imposition for violation of statutory provisions. The court concluded that the case was factually based, with no legal rights violation demonstrated by the petitioner. As no statutory provisions were contravened, and no non-compliance with natural justice principles was evident, the writ petition was dismissed without costs.