If the tax invoice along with E-way bill are produced before passing the seizure as well as detention order, the proceedings is not justified. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The matter is remanded to the first appellate authority, who shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an identical issue is engaging the attention of this Court in 019 (Allahabad) in which this Court on 11.5.2023 has passed the following order:-

Second supplementary affidavit is filed and it is taken on record today.

The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present petition is that for release of goods. In any case, once from the facts on record, which have gone undisputed, the petitioner, who is consignor in the invoice and e-Way Bill, claims himself to be the owner of the goods, the provisions of Section 129(1)(b) of the Act could not be invoked for imposing penalty.

he writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The orders to the extent of rejecting the refund of CGST & IGST and the appellate order are quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to follow the provisions of Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

In this petition, the petitioner has prayed to set aside the impugned refund rejection order. The matter is remanded back to the appellate authority/respondent to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

The clarification given by the Board vide its Circular dated 31, 2018, levy of penalty under Section 129(1)(b) was not called for and could not be justified as Section 129(1)(a) of the Act provides that where owner of the goods comes forward for payment of penalty, the amount has to be two hundred per cent of the tax payable, whereas, in the case in hand, the penalty has been levied to the tune of hundred per cent of the value of the goods

The High Court has materially erred in entertaining the writ petition against the show cause notice and quashing and setting aside the same. It was premature for the High Court to opine anything on whether there was any evasion of the tax or not. The same was to be considered in an appropriate proceeding for which the notice under Section 130 of the Act was issued.

The petitioner is aggrieved as the respondents have frozen the escrow account as well as its current account. The present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the order that may be passed in respect of its objections.

This court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy by way of appeal. Further, refusal to entertain this writ petition will not be a bar on the respondent authority concerned to release the vehicle in question, if the petitioner makes any application and complies the formalities in accordance with law.

In the instant case, the petitioner’s request for a refund is rejected on the ground of limitation. The petition is allowed quashing the impugned orders issued by the third respondent and the petitioner’s refund applications are restored for reconsideration.

This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner must be granted liberty to file such affidavit before the fifth respondent and call upon the fifth respondent to pass suitable orders in accordance with law within the timeframe.