M/S Ashoo Roadlines Through Its Authorized Partner Mr. Sajid Panja vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was misconceived. It noted that a show cause notice dated 04.12.2020 had been issued to the petitioner and others, and the validity of the panchnama was under consideration in those proceedings. The Court found that the petitioner had an efficacious remedy to contest the show cause notice before the adjudicating authority. The Court directed that if the petitioner filed an application before the competent adjudicating authority, it should be considered expeditiously in accordance with the law. The Court found no interference was called for and dismissed the writ petition. The issue of testing the goods in 20 barrels was implicitly left to be addressed by the adjudicating authority.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ashoo Road Lines, a transportation firm, filed a writ petition challenging the search, seizure, and panchnama dated June 9-10, 2020, conducted by the DGGI. During the search at the petitioner's premises, 10 trucks were found, with five loaded with Vimal Brand Pan Masala, VI Brand Tobacco, and other goods, and five empty. The drivers stated the loaded trucks were used for transporting Pan Masala without invoices. Consequently, the 10 trucks were seized. Later, five empty trucks were released, but the remaining five loaded trucks were handed back to the petitioner with a condition not to use them without GST department permission. The petitioner argued this condition prevented them from using the trucks, hindering loan repayment. They also sought testing of goods stored in 20 barrels.

Key Issues

1. Whether the search, seizure, and panchnama dated 09/10.06.2020, and all consequent proceedings, are illegal and liable to be quashed, as argued by the petitioner? The petitioner contended that the actions were illegal and sought their quashing. The respondents argued that the petition was misconceived, filed after two years, and that an investigation was completed with a show cause notice issued. They stated that the release of goods/trucks is within the adjudicating authority's jurisdiction. 2. Whether the release of 5 seized trucks, which were empty, was illegal, and if the respondents should be directed to allow their operation, as argued by the petitioner? The petitioner sought the release of these trucks from the imposed condition. The respondents submitted that the matter falls under the adjudicating authority's purview. 3. Whether respondent No.4 should be directed to test goods stored in 20 barrels for their characteristics, specification, and ingredients by an appropriate government laboratory, as argued by the petitioner? The petitioner requested this testing. The respondents noted that respondent No.4 is not a competent authority to consider such a request at this stage.