Anup Kumar Maheswari vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioners are lorry owners transporting polished granite slabs. The Deputy State Tax Officer (Respondent No. 1) intercepted their vehicles on 06.05.2025 and 06.05.2025, detaining the vehicles and goods under Form GST MOV-02. The petitioners claim the goods were accompanied by a Tax Invoice and e-way bill. They subsequently sent representations via email on 09.05.2025 to Respondent No. 2 requesting the release of the vehicles and goods. The petitioners argue that the detention orders are arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and lack a Document Identification Number (DIN). They seek a direction for the release of their vehicles and goods.

Held

The High Court, without going into the merits of the case, disposed of the writ petitions by directing Respondent No. 2 (Assistant Commissioner of State Tax) to consider the email replies/representations of the petitioners, all dated 09.05.2025. The Court ordered Respondent No. 2 to pass appropriate orders thereon strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one week from the date of the order. The Court also directed that the decision be communicated to the petitioners. No order as to costs was made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the Deputy State Tax Officer in detaining the polished granite slabs and vehicles, despite the goods being accompanied by a Tax Invoice and e-way bill, is arbitrary, contrary to law, without jurisdiction, biased, and frivolous, violating Articles 14, 21, 265, and 300A of the Constitution of India, particularly due to the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) in the detention order? 2. Whether the detention orders issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer are null and void? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners contend that the detention orders are illegal and void due to the absence of a DIN, making them arbitrary and contrary to constitutional provisions. They argue that since the goods were covered by valid tax documents, the detention was unjustified. They seek the immediate release of their vehicles and goods. Revenue's Arguments: The Special Government Pleader for the respondents fairly submitted that Respondent No. 2 will consider the replies/representations of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.