M/S Shri Veer Balaji Alloy LLP., Hyderabad vs. Special Commnr. Of C.T. And GST, Cuttack

This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to release the vehicle bearing registration no. RJ 40 GA 5453 in favour of the petitioner in any terms and conditions as deemed fit and proper within a stipulated time.

Mr. T.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the vehicle in question of the petitioner, which carries with battery scraps, has been detained by the authority. The same having not been released, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. It is contended that on appearance of the advocate, the opposite parties have passed order stating therein to produce the relevant records, like order placed by the purchaser, place of loading the goods in the vehicle, name of the suppliers and payment details, so that the vehicle can be released.

Mr. Diganta Dash, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue contended that there was fake transaction and on the basis of the fake documents the vehicle was moving with battery scraps and when it was detected on the way, the same was detained. It is contended that one Ramesh Bhue of Barahkata, the proprietor of the firm M/s R.B. Enterprises was also summoned to appear in person and clarify about the genuineness of the transaction made. Pursuant to the summons, Ramesh Bhue appeared personally and produced his identity and submitted that he has neither applied for any GST registration in the name of M/s R.B. Enterprises nor doing any business at the principal place mentioned in the registration certificate of the firm and, as such, he is a daily wage agricultural labourer by profession earning his livelihood from daily work. Therefore, doubt arises in the mind of the authority that making fake transaction, the goods are carried out by the petitioner. Consequentially, communication was made to the advocate to appear on behalf of the petitioner to produce relevant documents for consideration.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that since the transaction was done by producing fake documents and genuineness of the same is under scrutiny of the authority and, as such, the authority called upon the owner of the firm to produce relevant documents like order placed by the purchaser, place of loading the goods in the vehicle, name of the suppliers and payment details, instead of approaching the authority, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. At this point of time, learned counsel for the contended that the petitioner may be permitted to move the authority for compliance of the communication issued by the authority on 01.08.2023 under Annexure-9 for early release of the vehicle.

In the above view of the matter, this writ petition stands disposed of permitting the petitioner to move the authority pursuant to Annexure-9 dated 01.08.2023 along with all relevant documents so that the authority can consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.