M/S. Khanna Engineering, Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack

Mr. Das, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client had filed petition dated 4th September, 2024 seeking passing of order in Form GST MOV-09. The truck carrying WPC no.3055 of 2025 consignment was detained on 5th July, 2024. There was urgency for his client to conclude the consignment. Hence on 5th July, 2024 itself his client paid Rs.5,37,656/- and got released the truck. However, the detention was illegal. There was no order made within a period of seven days from the date of service of the notice, as provided by sub-section (3) in section 129, Odisha Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Hence, the petition.

He submits, by impugned order dated 26th September, 2024 the petition stood rejected as devoid of merit. It does not bear a reason that can be acceptable in law. He reiterates, no order was passed within period of seven days from date of service of the notice and hence, the rejection of the petition by impugned order is bad. He seeks interference.

Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State revenue. He submits, on 5th July, 2024 itself, petitioner paid the penalty to compound the offence. The proceeding was dropped there and then. The truck stood released. Petitioner after having admitted his liability cannot be allowed to turn around and seek adjudication on merits. It is an abuse of the process. WPC no.3055 of 2025

Mr. Kedia, learned advocate, Junior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of Central revenue.

We find disclosed in the petition Form GST MOV-07 dated 5th July, 2024. In it there is reflection of calculation of applicable penalty under clause (a) of sub-section (1) in section 129. The amount is Rs.5,37,656/-, which petitioner says he paid and State revenue confirms, he did. In the circumstances, we have a situation where petitioner admits the notice having been served and payment of penalty on calculation made, all done on the date of detaining the truck, i.e. 5th July, 2024. 6. Sub-section (5) under section 129 says, on payment of amount referred in sub-section (1), all proceeding in respect of the notice specified in sub-section (3) shall be deemed to be concluded. Proceeding under sub-section (3) was initiated by the notice, received by petitioner. This happened on detaining his truck. There was calculation of penalty to be paid. It was in the proceeding commenced by the notice. Petitioner paid the penalty. Sub-section (5) came into operation. It is not necessary for us to adjudicate on whether in spite of payment of the required penalty an order was required to be made under WPC no.3055 of 2025 sub-section (3) because on the payment, by operation of sub-section (5), the proceeding was deemed to be concluded.

We find no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed.