ORDER :

R.Raghunandan Rao, J.

1. As all these Writ Petitions raise a similar question of law, they are being disposed of, by way of this common order.

2. Heard Sri P. Girish Kumar, Sri V. Raghuraman, Sri M.V.J.K. Kumar, Sri Pasupuleti Venkata Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sameer Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Akula Vamsi Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes appearing for the respondents.

3. In all these cases, the officers, appointed under the APGST Act, at various check posts, in the State of Andhra Pradesh, had intercepted consignments, moving in the course of interstate trade from a point of origin, which is outside the State of Andhra Pradesh, to a destination, which is also outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. After such interception, proceedings have been initiated, initially under Section 129 of the GST Act and in some cases, these proceedings were continued under Section 130 of the GST Act.

4. The details of point of origin of the goods, the destination of goods, the dates on which these consignments were intercepted and detained/seized/confiscated and the details relating to the provisions of the GST Act which were invoked are contained in the table set out below:

Order

Order

5. In all these cases, it is an admitted fact, that the said goods were accompanied by all the necessary documents, set out under Section 68 of the GST Act, 2017, except in W.P.No.3258 of 2026. However, the goods were intercepted and proceedings, under Section 129 or 130 of the GST Act, were initiated and continued, on the ground that the goods were grossly undervalued or on the ground that the goods do not match the description set out in the accompanying documents, or on the ground that the quantum of goods intercepted, was far higher than the quantum set out in the accompanying documents.

6. The contentions raised by the petitioners, in all the aforesaid cases are primarily twofold. Firstly, the State authorities in the State of Andhra Pradesh, have no jurisdiction, to initiate proceedings under Section 129 or section 130, in relation to movement of goods under the IGST Act and secondly, the question of valuation etc., cannot be taken up under Section 129 or 130

7. The first issue that