The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transporter may seek release of only the conveyance, upon satisfaction of the statutory conditions under Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 and TNGST Act, 2017.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent herein to accept the bank guarantee equivalent to the disputed penalty amount in accordance with the provisions of Section 129(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 and provisionally release the goods along with the conveyance bearing TN 52 C 8696.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the 1st Respondent in impugned proceedings vide Order of Detention in Form GST MOV-06 dated 12.07.2022 and the consequential impugned proceedings of the 2nd Respondent vide Order of Demand of Tax and Penalty (Form MOV-09) in GST MOV Order No.24/2022-23/Adjudication-2 order dated 19.07.2022 quash the same as illegal and in violation of the provisions of the TNGST Act, 2017.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in ADJ No. 45/2022-2023/Adjudication-2 dated 5.8.2022 and the connected impugned proceedings in Form GST MOV-09 issued in GST MOV Order No. 45/2022-2023/Adjudication-2 dated 5.8.2022 and quash both the proceedings as issued without authority of law and contrary to the provisions of the CGST Act 2017 and TNGST Act 2017 and further direct the respondent to release the detained Tata Hitachi Ex 210-7693 (Excavator) without insisting the petitioners to remit the 200 percent penalty levied under clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 129 of the CGST Act 2017 and TNGST Act 2017.)

Common Order:

1. These writ petitions give rise to a common question. The petitioners in WP.Nos.20794 and 21690 of 2022 are owners of consignments that had been transported by road. In light of the decision taken finally in these matters, we are not concerned with the merits of the matter or the explanation that has been furnished by the petitioner. Peripheral facts, as relevant to decide the issue that arises, are alone recorded below.

Facts in WP.No.20794 of 2022

2. The petitioner had been engaged to supply TMT bars from Hosur at the address of the consignee work site at Trichy. An e-way bill had been generated for the movement of goods and the goods were being transported accompanied by documents. The State Tax Officer had intercepted the consignment on 11.07.2022 and detained the same.

3. Form GST Mov-2 was issued on the ground that the address for delivery, 84, Egai Town Paganur Road, Manikandam, Trichy-620012 did not have a corresponding GSTIN or trade name. Thereafter, an order of detention dated 12.07.2022 has been passed under Section 129(1) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short 'Act') read with Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

4. A proposal for levy of penalty followed, that the petitioner responded to, with an explanation. An order of demand of penalty in GST MOV-09 has come to be passed on 19.07.2022 as against which the present writ petition has been filed.

Facts in W P.No.21690 of 2020

5. The petitioner had transported an excavator from Chennai to the branch of its customer, at Salem. The consignment was intercepted by the State Tax Officer on the ground that the documents accompanying the consignment were deficient. A show cause notice was issued and explanation called for from the petitioner that culminated in the impugned order of penalty dated 05.08.2022.

6. Both the petitioners as above, accede to the position that their explanations to the SCN touch upon the determination of various facts that would be best left to the appellate authority to decide.The provisions of Section 107 of the Act provides for an efficacious alternate remedy by way of an appeal to the appellate authority and hence the petitioners would agree that appeals would be filed challenging the impugned orders.

Facts in WP.No.18753 of 2022

7. The petitioner herein is the transporter of the cons