DSG Papers (P.) Ltd VS State Of Haryana

In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the legality of a detention order and a show cause notice both dated May 1, 2019, and seeks judicial relief to rectify the situation. The petitioner, who is involved in paper manufacturing, had purchased old and used paper mill machinery from M/s Papteq in Bagpat, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, as documented by an invoice dated April 27, 2019. The machinery was dispatched using truck No. PB-11BA-7365, and an e-way bill valid until April 30, 2019, was generated by the seller before the truck’s movement. The core issue in the petition is the detention of the truck and its cargo, which the petitioner contends was unjustified. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the detention order and show cause notice and a writ of mandamus to compel the relevant authority to either generate a new e-way bill or amend the existing one, and to release the truck and its goods on terms other than cash or a bank guarantee.

On May 1, 2019, truck No. PB-11BA-7365 was intercepted by respondent No. 2 at Raipur Roran, GT Road, Old Toll Plaza, Karnal. During the inspection, it was discovered that the e-way bill for the cargo had expired. As a result, the driver’s statement was recorded, and after a physical verification, respondent No. 2 detained both the truck and its goods under Form GST MOV 06, which documented the detention. Subsequently, on May 2, 2019, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, detailing the reasons for the detention and requesting an explanation. The petitioner responded to this notice on May 3, 2019, providing a detailed reply to address the concerns raised. However, despite submitting the response, the petitioner has not received any further communication or resolution regarding the matter. This lack of response prompted the petitioner to file the current writ petition, seeking judicial intervention to resolve the issues stemming from the detention of the truck and its cargo.

In the present writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks judicial relief concerning the detention of their truck and goods. The sequence of events leading to the petition began on May 1, 2019, when the truck bearing registration number PB-11BA-7365 was intercepted by respondent No. 2 at Raipur Roran, GT Road, Old Toll Plaza, Karnal. During this interception, it was discovered that the e-way bill accompanying the goods had expired. As a result of this finding, respondent No. 2 recorded the driver’s statement and performed a physical verification of the cargo. Following these procedures, the truck and its goods were detained and the detention was documented using Form GST MOV 06.

Subsequent to the detention, on May 2, 2019, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. This notice outlined the reasons for the detention and required the petitioner to provide an explanation. In compliance with this notice, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on May 3, 2019, addressing the issues raised and providing a justification for the validity of the e-way bill. The petitioner’s response aimed to clarify any misunderstandings and sought the release of the detained truck and its goods.

Despite the submission of the reply, the petitioner has not received any further action or communication from the authorities regarding their response. The lack of response or resolution to the petitioner’s reply has resulted in prolonged detention of the truck and goods, causing operational difficulties and financial losses for the petitioner.

The petitioner’s counsel has submitted that the delay in addressing the reply and the continued detention of the vehicle and its cargo are unjustified and have compelled the petitioner to seek relief through this writ petition. The petitioner argues that the absence of action on their reply and the continued detention without resolution warrant judicial intervention. The petitioner requests the court to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the detention order and show cause notice, and a writ of mandamus to compel respondent No. 2 to either generate a new e-way bill, amend the existing one, or release the truck and goods on terms other than cash or a bank guarantee. The petition emphasizes that the lack of timely resolution has adversely impacted the petitioner’s business operations and seeks to expedite the process through judicial relief.

After considering the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the petitioner and thoroughly reviewing the details of the present writ petition, the court has decided to dispose of the matter. The court refrains from making any judgments or expressing opinions on the substantive merits of the case at this stage. Instead, the focus is on addressing the procedural aspects of the petitioner’s grievance.

In this context, the court directs respondent No. 2 to take a prompt and lawful decision regarding the petitioner’s reply dated May 3, 2019, which was submitted in response to the show cause notice issued on May 2, 2019. This decision should be made in accordance with the applicable legal principles and procedural requirements. Respondent No. 2 is instructed to issue a reasoned or “speaking” order, which should clearly outline the rationale behind the decision made.

Furthermore, the court mandates that respondent No. 2 must provide the petitioner with an opportunity to be heard before finalizing the decision. This ensures that the petitioner’s concerns and arguments are duly considered. The court specifies that this process should be completed within one week from the date when the certified copy of the court’s order is received by respondent No. 2.

In summary, the court’s directive aims to ensure a fair and timely resolution of the issues raised by the petitioner by compelling respondent No. 2 to address the petitioner’s reply and to provide a clear, reasoned decision in accordance with legal procedures.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: