Page 82 - GSTL_16th July 2020_Vol. 38_Part 3

320 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
and that was the reason for detention of vehicle and the seizure of the goods.
According to the respondents, the respondent authorities had immediately is-
sued a notice under Section 129 to which the petitioners also submitted their re-
ply on 17-1-2020 and since the reply of the petitioners were not convincing, satis-
factory or acceptable, the respondent authorities have passed the order under
Section 129. The contention of the petitioners is that the impugned order under
Section 129 is one which is appealable under Section 107, therefore the writ peti-
tion for this reason itself is not maintainable. The State Counsel on instructions
submits that as regards the discrepancy it has been informed that the price at
which product was sold to the customer was not matching the MRP of the prod-
uct, which reflected in the packet transported. The second ground raised by the
respondents is that subject to the compliance of the order (Annexure P/1), the
respondent authorities would release the goods and the vehicle seized and de-
tained by the respondents and thus prayed for the rejection of the writ petition.
8. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal
of record, some of the undisputed rather admitted positions from the submis-
sions made on behalf of either side is that the petitioners are in the business of
manufacturing of Pan Masala and Tobacco Products since 14-1-2020 from the
petitioners-establishment. Some consignments of goods were transported to the
consumer at Raipur and the product was being transported on a Maxi Truck Plus
1.2 TPS bearing registration No. CG 04 ME 3494. The said vehicle belonged to the
Shyam Transport Company. The vehicle was being driven by the Driver Shanker
Yadav. What is further to be seen is that undisputedly when the vehicle was sub-
jected to inspection, the person Incharge of the conveyance i.e. the driver had
with him the invoice bill duly issued which matched the quantity found in the
vehicle. In addition, the driver also was in possession of the e-way bill duly gen-
erated and which also was posted in the Web portal of the Department, which
again had the details of the consignment and also the details of the tax paid and
both of which was produced to the Inspecting Authorities, who had intercepted
the vehicle on 14-1-2020. While the goods was being transported from the peti-
tioner/manufacturer to its consumer at Raipur.
9. Thus, from the aforesaid factual admitted position, as it stands when
the vehicle was intercepted from the 14-1-2020, the person Incharge of the con-
veyance was in fact carrying the requisite documents, which he was supposed to
carry in the course of transportation of the goods. As regards the discrepancy
found in the course of inspection, the only observation made by the authorities
concerned is that the valuation does not seem to have been properly conducted.
10. Merely because the manufacturer sells his products to its customer
or dealer at a price lower than the MRP, as such cannot be a ground on which the
product or the vehicle could be seized or detained. If at all if this, according to
the respondents, is contrary to the law, the authorities are supposed to draw an
appropriate proceeding under the law. If at all what the State Counsel has sub-
mitted is to be accepted, even then it would be only a case of an alleged sale of a
product at a lower costs than the MRP. The Inspecting Authorities for the alleged
discrepancy could have only intimated the Assessing Authority for initiating ap-
propriate proceedings. What is more relevant to take note of is the fact that the
details in the invoice bill as well as in the e-way bill matched the products found
in the vehicle at the time of inspection except for the price of sale.
GST LAW TIMES  16th July 2020  82