JUDGMENT :

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 23.10.2020, whereby the petitioner’s goods were detained under Section 129(1) of the Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter ‘the Act’) as well as an order dated 23.10.2020 raising a demand of tax and penalty of a sum of 2,78,129/-.

2. The petitioner had appealed the said orders. However, the said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority in terms of an order dated 31.12.2021. The petitioner also impugns the said appellate order.

3. The petitioner states that it carries on the business of trading in steel/iron bars as a sole proprietor of a concern named Shri Ram Enterprises.

4. The controversy, in the present case, relates to detention of a consignment of goods intercepted during their transportation. The petitioner states that it had purchased the said consignment of steel from M/s Mahendra Steels (GSTIN 07ABBFM3857D1ZE) and had sold it to M/s S.K. Integrated Consultants (GSTIN 07AAQFSS059PIZ8). The said goods were in the process of being transported directly from the premises of M/s Mahendra Steels to M/s S.K. Integrated Consultants.

5. The petitioner claims that an E-Way Bill (E-Way Bill No. 731151893114) dated 19.10.2020 was generated for transporting the said goods. The said E-Way Bill duly recorded the movement of goods in question, in a truck bearing Registration No. HR 46D 1337 from M/s Mahendra Steels (Khasra No. 59/8 Tel Wali Gali, Mundka, Delhi) to Dwarka More Near Dwarka Metro Station, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110077, which are the premises of S.K. Integrated Consultants.

6. The petitioner states that the E-Way Bill clearly mentions the GSTIN number of the petitioner being GSTIN 09AJJPC9819MIZL. However, since the petitioner had sold the goods in question to M/s S.K. Integrated Consultants, therefore, the address provided in the E-Way Bill was that of M/s S.K. Integrated Consultants.

7. The truck was intercepted by the GST Authorities on 19.10.2020 at 11:00 p.m. The said truck was detained on the ground that the documents found were defective. However, there is some controversy in this regard as the respondent claims in the counter-affidavit that the goods were not accompanied by any E-Way Bill but merely an invoice in the name of M/s S.K. Integrated Consultants.

8. The petitioner’s goods were detained by a detention order dated 23.10.2020 and on the same date, notice under Section 129(3) of the GST Act was issued. The said notice stated the reasons for detaining the goods as “prima facie, the documents tendered are found to be defective”.

9. On the same date (that is, 23.10.2020), an order of demand of tax and penalty was passed raising a demand of 2,78,129/- and a penalty of an equivalent amount.

10. The petitioner states that he required the goods urgently and therefore, paid the tax and penalty demanded for securing the release of goods.

11. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority impugning the said demand of tax and the levy of penalty. The said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by an order dated 31.12.2021.

12. The Appellate Authority found that the order dated 23.10.2020, passed by the proper officer, was legally justified and required no interference. The reasons for the said conclusion are set out in Paragraph 11 of the order passed by the Appellate Authority, which reads as under:

“11.I have heard the submissions of the representatives of the Appellant and also gone through the impugned order issued in GST MOV-09 by the Proper Officer dated 23.10.2020 along with all the other documents placed on record. After having carefully perused the impugned order as well as written submissions and the grounds raised by the Appellant in the instant appeal, it is found that the Proper Officer has issued the detailed/speaking order after complying the provisions as envisaged under the DGST Act and rules made therein under. The Proper Officer has categorically pointed the discrep