Case Details: Anish Transport Company vs. State of U.P. (2025) 37 Centax 77 (All.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Piyush Agrawal, J.
- S/Shri A.K. Mishra & Niraj Kumar Singh, for the Petitioner.
- Shri Ravi Shankar Pandey, Learned ACSC, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a GST-registered transporter, was engaged to transport goods from Dehradun to Delhi for a consignor. On interception of the vehicle at Meerut, the petitioner produced all required documents including the e-way bill. On physical verification, a shortfall in quantity as compared with the e-way bill was recorded, and the goods along with the vehicle were seized under a detention order issued under Section 129 of the CGST Act/Uttar Pradesh GST Act. A SCN was then issued and an order under Section 129(3) rejected the explanation that fewer goods had been loaded due to human error by the consignor. The release order recorded that the goods belonged to the consignor, and the goods were released to the consignor. The petitioner’s appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) was rejected. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that there was no finding to show that the petitioner had engaged in any purchase or sale of goods and the release order itself confirmed that the goods belonged to the consignor. The court held that where the consignor asserted human error in loading and the departmental authorities released the goods to the consignor, any allegation of evasion could not be attributed to the transporter. The court further held that, in the absence of adverse material against the petitioner, the seizure of the vehicle and initiation of proceedings under Section 129 read with Section 68 of the CGST Act/Uttar Pradesh GST Act were unsustainable. The impugned orders were quashed, the writ petition was allowed, and the amount deposited pursuant to the impugned proceedings was directed to be refunded.
