The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of the e-Way Bill for the release of goods, as mandated by Section 129 of the Jharkhand Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Sidhartha Roy learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jagdeesh, learned counsel for the State.

2. The present petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 11.12.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Criminal Revision No. 56 of 2020 whereby he has affirmed the order dated 07.09.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Hazaribagh whereby release for coal in question has been rejected in connection with Barhi P.S. Case No. 156/2020, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Hazaribagh.

3. Mahabir Oraon, A.S.I. of Barhi P.S. has lodged F.I.R. alleging therein that on 05.05.2020 at about 17.05 hours he received information that one Truck bearing Registration No. JH-02-AB-9186 loaded with coal is coming from the side of Hazaribagh and going to Aurangabad for sell. On such information the informant started verification of toll plaza and on given signal truck was stopped and found that the driver was boarded there and on interrogation, the driver disclosed his name and parentage and on demand of the documents of coal loaded on the truck, driver produced the same before the police personnel and on 06.06.2020 the said document of coal was verified by the informant from the CCL Topa Project and the said coal was sold to the J.S.M.D.C. Ltd. and the J.S.M.D.C. has sold the same to the M/s Vaibhav Enterprises for its destination Daltonganj Industrial Estate Sudna Palamu. It is further alleged that without e-Way Bill M/s Vaibhav Enterprises at Naisarai, Ramgarh was not found as such the said truck loaded with coal were seized under seizure list and the case under reference was instituted and investigation was taken up.

4. Mr. Sidhartha Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the coal in question was seized on 07.05.2020 along truck bearing Registration No. JH-02-AB-9186. He further submits that in course of time the said truck was released whereas the coal has not been released. He further submits that the said coal was not released only on the ground that the petitioner has not produced e-Way Bill. He further submits that in view of Section 129 of Jharkhand Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, the court was required to direct to release the coal in question. He further submits that the police has given no objection.

5. Mr. Jagdeesh, learned counsel for the State submits that the alleged coal was being transported to State of Bihar without obtaining e-Way Bill. He further submits that e-Way Bill suggests the place of destination of coal in question comes. He further submits that the coal was being transported to somewhere in the state of Bihar. He further submits that the case has been filed by the police and Section 129 of the G.S.T. Act is not attracted in this case.

6. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the material available on record. Police report suggests that e-Way Bill was not produced by the petitioner. The Revisional Court has considered all these aspects as has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Revisional Court has held that it is an admitted position that the transporter was not having the e-Way Bill while transporting the said coal to place of destination and even at later point of time the same was not furnished either before the I.O. of the present case or before the learned lower court. The e-Way Bill is a document which required to be carried out by a person in charge of conveyance and must be produced for release of goods which has not been done in the case in hand. The revisional order is well founded order. G.S.T. Act is not attracted in the case in hand. At this stage petitioner is required to demonstrate how the coal in question was being transported to the place of another destination which has not been done in the case in hand. There is no illegality in the revisional order. The Court sitting under Section 48