Sodhi Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd. VS State of Haryana

The petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari to quash an appellate order dated September 20, 2022, and to secure the release of goods for which bills have been duly produced. The petitioner, registered under the GST Act as GST Registration No. 09AHEPS2308G1ZE, operates a transport company named Sodhi Cargo & Movers.

On September 8, 2021, while transporting goods for various consignors from Delhi to Agra, the petitioner’s vehicle, bearing registration number UP-80-DD-7407, was intercepted by Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Assistant Excise & Taxation (Enforcement), Faridabad South. This interception occurred at Bata Chowk, Faridabad, under provisions of Section 68(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, and corresponding state or union territory GST laws, or Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The issue arises because the driver of the vehicle did not produce the necessary documents during this interception. Despite the petitioner providing the required bills and invoices for the goods, the appellate order challenged in this petition did not result in the release of the goods. The petitioner is now seeking judicial intervention to overturn this order and recover the goods.

The petitioner, who is a transporter operating under the name Sodhi Cargo & Movers and registered under GST Act with GST Registration No. 09AHEPS2308G1ZE, is seeking a writ of certiorari to quash an appellate order dated September 20, 2022. This order was issued despite the petitioner producing valid bills for the goods being transported and requesting the release of the detained goods associated with conveyance number UP-80-DD-7407.

On September 8, 2021, while transporting goods from Delhi to Agra, the petitioner’s vehicle was intercepted by Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Assistant Excise & Taxation (Enforcement) Faridabad South. This interception occurred under Section 68 of the CGST Act, 2017, or the corresponding sections of the State/Union Territory GST Act or the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The interception was prompted by the driver’s failure to produce an E-way bill, leading to the non-acceptance of the invoices he was carrying as complete and accurate. However, the petitioner later submitted a complete set of invoices to the Appellate Authority.

The initial notice dated September 8, 2021, cited issues with the bills and resulted in the detention of the goods vehicle. Subsequently, an order dated September 29, 2021, imposed a tax of Rs. 5,66,740 and a penalty of Rs. 32,58,639 under Section 129(1)(2) of the Haryana Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner, dissatisfied with this order, filed an appeal after depositing a minimum penalty of Rs. 54,642, as evidenced by a receipt dated December 7, 2021.

Despite the appeal being filed, it was not heard, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition (CWP-12833-2022) seeking the release of the detained goods. This writ petition was disposed of on June 2, 2022, with directions for the Joint Commissioner, Excise and Taxation, Faridabad to decide the appeal within eight weeks, allowing the petitioner’s representative a chance to be heard.

On September 20, 2022, the appeal was rejected on grounds of lacking merit. The order of September 20, 2022, reveals that during the check on September 8, 2021, the vehicle’s driver produced a challan dated September 7, 2021. A physical verification of the goods was conducted by a committee on September 10, 2021, in the presence of Sh. Pardeep Sharma, the person in charge, which found discrepancies with 17 items.

The petitioner now seeks to quash the order dated September 20, 2022, on the grounds that despite having valid documentation, the appeal was unjustly dismissed and the goods were not released.

The petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the appellate order dated September 20, 2022, which rejected their appeal despite the petitioner having submitted the necessary invoices for their goods. The petitioner, a registered transporter under the GST Act operating as Sodhi Cargo & Movers, was transporting goods from Delhi to Agra on September 8, 2021. During transit, the goods were intercepted by an enforcement officer in Faridabad. The driver was unable to produce the required E-way bills at the time of interception, leading to the non-acceptance of the invoices and subsequent detention of the vehicle.

A notice was issued on September 8, 2021, and a tax and penalty order was made on September 29, 2021, totaling Rs. 5,66,740/- in tax and Rs. 32,58,639/- in penalty. The petitioner filed an appeal after paying a minimum penalty of Rs. 54,642/- on December 7, 2021. This appeal was not initially heard, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition (CWP-12833-2022) to expedite the hearing. The writ petition was resolved on June 2, 2022, with a direction to the Joint Commissioner to decide the appeal within eight weeks.

Despite this direction, the appeal was rejected on September 20, 2022. The rejection order noted that at the time of the interception, the driver had only produced a challan dated September 7, 2021. A committee later verified the goods and found discrepancies, including missing documents for 17 items and an excess of 11,300 meters of polyester fabric. Consequently, notices were issued, but neither the transporter nor the goods owner appeared or deposited the required amounts. As a result, the tax and penalty were confirmed as specified in the earlier order.

The Appellate Authority upheld the initial decision, leading to the present petition challenging this decision. The petitioner argues that the order dated September 20, 2022, should be quashed and the goods released, given that all required bills and documents were duly provided.

The petitioner, who operates a transport business under the name Sodhi Cargo & Movers and is registered under the GST Act with GST Registration No. 09AHEPS2308G1ZE, seeks a writ of certiorari to quash an order dated 20.09.2022 that denied their appeal and to release their detained goods. The situation began on 08.09.2021 when the petitioner was transporting goods from Delhi to Agra. During this transport, the goods were intercepted by Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Assistant Excise & Taxation (Enforcement), Faridabad South, under the CGST Act, 2017, and related state legislation.

The interception occurred at Bata Chownk, Faridabad, because the driver did not produce E-way bills, leading to the rejection of the invoices. Although the complete set of invoices was submitted later, they were found to be in order. A notice was issued on 08.09.2021 for the detention of the goods, and subsequently, a tax and penalty amounting to Rs.5,66,740/- and Rs.32,58,639/-, respectively, were levied through an order dated 29.09.2021.

The petitioner appealed this order by depositing a minimum penalty of Rs.54,642/- as required. The appeal was delayed and subsequently led to a writ petition (CWP-12833-2022) seeking the release of the goods. The court directed the Joint Commissioner, Excise and Taxation, Faridabad, to decide the appeal within eight weeks. The appeal was heard, and the order dated 20.09.2022 was passed, which rejected the appeal on grounds of lacking merit, prompting the current petition.

According to the order dated 20.09.2022, during the interception on 08.09.2021, the driver produced a challan dated 07.09.2021. A committee conducted a physical verification of the goods on 10.09.2021, which revealed discrepancies, including 17 items without documents and excess Polyester Fabric by 11,300 meters. Consequently, Forms GST MOV-04 and GST MOV-06 were issued, and a notice under Section 129 of the Act was served for tax and penalty. The person in charge of the goods did not appear, nor was the tax and penalty paid, leading to the confirmation of the tax and penalty through Form GST MOV-09 on 29.09.2021.

The Appellate Authority reviewed the case and upheld the order dated 29.09.2021. The petitioner challenges this decision by highlighting issues related to the handling and verification of documents and the penalty imposed. The relevant sections of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax (HGST) and Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Acts, including provisions for inspection and penalties for non-compliance, are cited to support the petitioner’s case.

The petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari to quash an appellate order dated September 20, 2022, and to have their goods released. The petitioner, a transporter operating under the name Sodhi Cargo & Movers and registered under GST Act (GST Registration No. 09AHEPS2308G1ZE), was involved in transporting goods from Delhi to Agra on September 8, 2021. During this transport, the goods were intercepted by an Assistant Excise & Taxation official, Rajesh Kumar, at Bata Chownk, Faridabad. The interception was carried out under provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, and related state laws.

The driver of the vehicle did not produce the necessary E-way bills at the time of interception. Consequently, the invoices accompanying the goods were deemed incomplete and inaccurate. However, the petitioner later submitted the complete set of invoices. These documents, dated September 6-7, 2021, are marked as Annexure P-1. Despite this, the goods were detained, and a notice was issued on September 8, 2021, regarding the discrepancies.

On September 29, 2021, the petitioner was levied a tax of ₹5,66,740 and a penalty of ₹32,58,639 under Section 129(1)(2) of the Haryana Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, as detailed in Annexure P-3. Dissatisfied with this order, the petitioner filed an appeal after depositing a minimum penalty of ₹54,642, as evidenced by receipt dated December 7, 2021 (Annexure P-4). The appeal was not initially heard, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition (CWP-12833-2022) seeking the release of the detained goods. This writ petition was disposed of on June 2, 2022, directing the Joint Commissioner, Excise and Taxation, Faridabad, to decide the appeal within eight weeks.

Despite this direction, the appeal was rejected on September 20, 2022 (Annexure P-7), on grounds of lack of merit. The order dated September 20, 2022, noted that during the interception on September 8, 2021, the driver presented a challan dated September 7, 2021. A subsequent physical verification on September 10, 2021, revealed that 17 items lacked proper documentation, and an excess of 11,300 meters of polyester fabric was found. Form GST MOV-04 and GST MOV-06 were issued, and a notice for tax and penalty was issued on September 12, 2021. The transporter or the goods’ owner did not appear or pay the assessed tax and penalty, leading to the final order dated September 29, 2021.

The Appellate Authority upheld the imposition of tax and penalty after reviewing the department’s defense. The petitioner argues that the appellate order is unjust and seeks to have it quashed, along with the release of their goods. The legal framework involves several sections of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which govern document requirements, penalties for various offenses, and procedural rules for handling disputes related to tax and goods.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Chandigarh High Court

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law