Order Date – 03 October 2023

Parties: M/S Om Prakash Kuldeep Kumar Vs Additional Commissioner Grade-2 And Another

Facts –

• The Petitioner, M/S Om Prakash Kuldeep Kumar, engaged in trading of Bidi, Match box, Tobacco, etc. They received orders for bidi and matchbox. They prepared tax invoices and E-way bills on 16.1.2020 and loaded goods on Truck for transportation.
• During onward journey, the same were intercepted and a seizure order was issued on 17.01.2020. being not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner GST MOV-09 dated 17.1.2020 was passed under Section 129 (3) of UP GST Act. The petitioner deposited an amount under protest as demand by the respondent.

Issue – 

• Whether the seizure order is valid when the documents are found to be genuine?

Order –

• The Single Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that the allegation made by the revenue regarding the statement of the driver found that not a single word has been whispered in respect of the goods in question to be unloaded at the place which has not been shown in the tax invoice accompanying the goods.
• Pertaining to the issue that the goods along with truck was not on the route of its destination, the court noticed that there is no specific provision which bounds the selling dealer to disclose the route to be taken during transportation of goods or while goods are in transit. Thus the authorities were not correct in passing the seizure order even if the vehicle was not on regular route or on different route.
• The power of detention as well as seizure can be exercised only when the goods were not accompanying with the genuine documents provided under the Act. The genuineness of the documents has not been disputed at any stage. Once the documents accompanying the goods were found to be genuine the goods ought not be have been seized.
• Hence the writ petition is allowed.