Order Date:10 June 2022 

Facts:

• The Petitioner, M/s Tvt.LAF Enterprises, purchased iron scrap from various dealers and it was in the process of transportation from Guwahati to Coimbatore. 
• On 29.05.2020, the vehicle carrying the consignments had suffered a mechanical difficulty as a result the driver was forced to deviate from the planned route to identify a service shop for addressing the issue.
• The vehicle had been stationed at the Sri Veeraragavar service station that night, which at intercepted at Sholavaram by the Deputy Tax Officer, Roving Squad, who upon a perusal of the documents that the driver was carrying arrived at the conclusion that the goods were being re-routed without proper e-way bill.
• The respondents were allowed to retain the vehicle. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition calling for and quashing impugned order in dated 30.05.2022.

Issue:

• Whether the order of detention and seizure of the vehicle in question u/s 129 of CGST Act is constitutional?

Order:

• The Hon’ble High Court observed that section 129 of CGST Act provide for detention and seizure of the vehicle and contents upon condition that an order of detention/seizure shall be passed at the time of detention/seizure, and duly served upon the person transporting the goods.
• In the present matter no such order of detention has been issued. Also, according to Section 129 (3), a proper officer detaining or seizing the goods must issue a notice specifying the penalty payable, and admittedly no such notice had been issued.
• Hence, the court, in the favour of petitioner, accepted the writ of mandamus and directed the Respondent to release the conveyance in question along with the goods contained.