Page 80 - GSTL_16th July 2020_Vol. 38_Part 3

318 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
ground for seizure - Undisputedly, Pan Masala and Tobacco products being
transported by petitioner from his factory to dealer’s premises were tax paid -
Prescribed documents viz. invoice and E-way Bill were also being carried by
Driver which were duly produced at time of interception with which quantity
and description of goods fully matched - Only ground for seizure and conse-
quent demand and penalty order was allegation of sale of goods below MRP -
Settled that undervaluation cannot be ground for seizure of goods in Transit
by inspecting authorities - At most they could have intimated concerned as-
sessing authority to initiate appropriate proceedings - In view of above, sei-
zure of goods and vehicle not sustainable - Impugned consequent demand and
penalty order set aside - However, Department at liberty to initiate appropriate
separate proceedings with regard to alleged undervaluation - Sections 129 and
130 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. [paras 8, 9, 10, 14, 15]
Writ jurisdiction - Alternative remedy availability - Seizure in contra-
vention of law - Since entire proceedings of detention of vehicle and seizure of
goods were in contravention of law, relegating petitioners to alternative appeal
remedy would not be proper, legal and justified - Writ jurisdiction invocable -
Article 226 of Constitution of India. [para 13]
Petition allowed
CASES CITED
Alfa Group v. Assistant State Tax Officer, Alappuzha
— 2020 (34) G.S.T.L. 142 (Ker.) — Relied on .............................................................................. [Para 11]
Sakul Naza Mohmd v. State of Gujarat — Special Civil Application No. 15655 of 2019
of Gujarat High Court — Relied on ............................................................................................. [Para 12]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Rohit Sharma and Manoj Paranjpe,
Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Shri Jitendra Pali, Dy. AG and Ms. Sunita Jain, GA,
for the Respondent.
[Order (CAV)]. - Since the facts and grounds raised in both these writ
petitions and the dates also being identical and the impugned orders also being
same, both these writ petitions are being decided by this common judgment.
2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated
17-1-2020 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondents for the purpose of release
of the vehicle carrying goods belonging to the petitioners from the manufactur-
ing centers to the dealer.
3. The relevant facts, which are relevant for the adjudication of the pre-
sent dispute is that the petitioners are the limited companies under the provi-
sions of the Companies Act. The petitioners herein are the manufacturers of ‘Pan
Masala and Tobacco Products’. On 14-1-2020, the petitioners dispatched goods
both Pan Masala and Tobacco Products to its customer vide Maxi Truck Plus 1.2
TPS No. CG 04 ME 3494 belonging to the transporter Shyam Transport Compa-
ny. The vehicle was being driven by one Shanker Yadav, resident of Ward No. 3,
Tilda, District Raipur. The customer to which the goods were being dispatched
was M/s. Ravi Agency at Jhulelal Market, Raipur. While the goods were being
transported, the petitioners/establishment had issued with a tax invoice as well
as e-way bill generated and handed the same to the Incharge of the conveyance
i.e. the driver namely Shanker Yadav. When the said vehicle/conveyance left for
Raipur on 14-1-2020, the vehicle was intercepted by the officials of the respond-
GST LAW TIMES  16th July 2020  80