M/S.Sai Ram Lorry Transport vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner 1

Held

The Court, without delving into the merits of whether the endorsement was made after proper appreciation of the material, decided to dispose of the writ petition by directing the 1st respondent to pass necessary orders on the show-cause notices issued under Sections 129 and 130 of the APGST/CGST & IGST Acts, 2017. This decision is to be made within one week from the date of the order, after affording the petitioner another hearing on these notices. Crucially, any decision taken by the 1st respondent must be uninfluenced by the observations contained in the impugned undated endorsement. The ratio decidendi is that procedural fairness requires proper consideration of objections and the issuance of final orders, and where this is lacking, the Court can direct the authority to complete the adjudication process, ensuring the petitioner's right to a proper hearing and decision is upheld. The Court did not decide on the validity of the detention or the penalties proposed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sai Ram Lorry Transport, a transporter, had their vehicle and 266 cases plus 56 bundles of fireworks detained on June 13, 2024, by the Deputy Assistant Commissioner (1st respondent) on NH-16 Bypass, Nellore. The detention was based on the objection that 11 bundles of fireworks were not covered by any documentation, constituting clandestine transportation under Section 129(1) of the APGST/CGST & IGST Acts, 2017. The respondent issued Form GST MOV-04 (physical verification report) on June 14, 2024, and Form GST MOV-07 (show-cause notice). The petitioner requested the release of goods except for the 11 undocumented bundles. Subsequently, the respondent issued a notice of confiscation (Form GST CVT-10) on June 21, 2024, citing a significant discrepancy between the declared invoice value and the fair market/MRP of the goods. The petitioner's objections were rejected by an undated endorsement, leading to the present writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the undated endorsement rejecting the petitioner's objections was passed without proper consideration of the material on record, as argued by the petitioner? The petitioner contends that the endorsement was passed without properly appreciating their objections and that it indicated further orders would be passed, leaving the petitioner without a legal remedy. The petitioner relies on the principle that orders must be passed after due consideration of all objections. The respondent's arguments are not recorded in the judgment. The Court did not explicitly frame these as questions of law but addressed the petitioner's grievance regarding the endorsement and the lack of final orders. The issues revolve around the procedural fairness and completeness of the adjudication process under the APGST/CGST & IGST Acts, 2017, particularly concerning Sections 129 and 130.