Hon’ble Ashok Kumar, J.—We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned Special Counsel for the State.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a private limited company and is engaged in manufacture and supply as well as export of industrial SS Tube, fittings and pipe fittings etc. The petitioner is registered under the provision of GST. The petitioner’s office is situated at Industrial Area Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad. An order has been received by the petitioner from one M/s Kansara Laljibhai Mohanlal, 7, Parsana Society, R.K. Watch Stree, 50 Feet Road, Rajkot, Gujarat for supply of 4942 kg of stainless steel welded pipes against the tax invoice dated 7.4.2018. The goods were being sold to the consignee situates at Rajkot for a sum of Rs. 5,43,631/-. The petitioner has charged the IGST @ 18% on the aforesaid amount. The aforesaid goods were booked through M/s Jai Hind Tempo Transport Service, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad. The goods were loaded in vehicle U.P.16-AT-5489 against the challan/GR No. 1116 dated 7.4.2018. The petitioner has downloaded e-way bill having Unique No. 431003252396 dated 7.4.2018 at 08.05 p.m. from the web portal of the Central Government and e-way bill consisted of all the details of the consignor, consignee, the challan number, its date, value of the goods, its HSN Code, the place of delivery of goods and the reason for its transportation.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the validity of the e-way bill showed that it is not valid for movement as Part B is not entered.

4. After loading the goods, the vehicle proceeded at about 8.33 p.m. on 7.4.2018 and the vehicle has procured a Kata Purchi and movement at about 9.20 p.m. from Sahibabad towards its destination namely Rajkot, Gujarat. During the course of transportation from Sahibabad i.e. from the factory of the petitioner upto the transporter, the vehicle has been intercepted at Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad on 8.4.2018 by the respondent No. 2, the Assistant Commissioner (in-charge), Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad, Unit-III, Ghaziabad at 12.15 a.m. and respondent No. 2 issued interception memo which was drawn by the respondent No. 2 under Section 129(1) of the UPGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’). The respondent No. 2 was of the opinion that the goods, namely Stainless Steel welded pipes which were found loaded on the vehicle during intra-state transportation, were accompanied with e-way bill having Unique Code, however, Part-B of the said e-way bill was not filled up and no vehicle number has been quoted/mentioned. The respondent No. 2 has directed for physical verification of the goods.

5. On physical verification held on 9.4.2018, the respondent No. 2 has found alleged irregularity, that Part-B of e-way bill was incomplete and, therefore, the respondent No. 2 has detained the vehicle as well as goods by passing an order under Section 129(1) of the Act by which he has assessed the value of goods to the tune of Rs. 5,43,631/-. Consequently, a notice under Section 129(3) of the Act has been issued by which the respondent No. 2 has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 97,854/- towards the tax liability as well as the same amount towards the penalty.

6. Aggrieved by the said seizure order and issuance of the penalty notice, the instant writ petition has been filed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though all the documents were accompanied the goods even then the same was intercepted and it has been categorically submitted before the respondent No. 2 that both the consignor and consignee are registered dealers and IGST @ 18% has been charged by the petitioner and that petitioner is registered bona fide dealer, therefore, objection with regard to non filling Part-B of e-way bill is nothing but clearly an abuse of process of law.

8. The contention of the petitioner before the authority below was that there was no intention on the part of th