JUDGMENT

Piyush Agrawal, J.

Heard Sri Aditya Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rishi Kumar learned ACSC for the respondents.

2. Since the GST Tribunal has not yet been formed the present writ petition is being entertained against the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals).

3. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.8.2021 passed by the respondent no.1 in Appeal No. GST-77/20, Assessment Year 2020-21 under the provisions of Section 129 (3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'GST Act") by which the order dated 21.10.2020 passed by the respondent no.2 has been confirmed.

4. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was a registered dealer under the GST Act having GSTIN No. 09DHGPK6236N3ZP. (Cancelled on 20.9.2020). At the time of transaction the petitoner was having the said GSTIN. In the normal course of business the petitioner purchases Supara (Areca Nuts) from a registered dealer situated at Gurgaon, Haryana i.e. M/s Gaurav Gtraders Shop No. 2 Kherki Daula, Gurugram, Haryana having GSTIN No. 06ANMPG5419N2ZL. For the said transaction the seller issued Tax Invoice No. 7, E-Waybill and GR No.28 dated 27.9.2020. The goods were being transported from Gurgaon, Haryana to Robertsganj, U.P. The goods were interceptred by respondent no.2; statement of the driver was taken on MOV 01 dated 30.9.2020 and physical verification of the goods was also done in MOV 04 dated 5.10.2020. Thereafter MOV 06 was issued detaining the goods. A notice under section 129(3) of the GST Act was issued in MOV 07 dated 5.10.2020. A supplementary notice was also issued on 17.10.2020 in which the stand was taken that the product in question was not Arecanut/Betul Nut but there was processed Betul Nut and thereafter MOV 09 dated 21.10.2020 was issued. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed GST APL 01 on 29.10.2020 before respondent no.1 which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 19.8.2021. Hence the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the relevant time i.e. on the date of transaction the parties were duly registered under GST Act; the goods were purchased by the petitioner and was accompanied with all relevant documdnts, i.e. tax invoice, e-waybill, GR as psrescribed under the GST Act; neither any discripancy what so ever was found at the time of interception of the goods nor at physical verification of the goods. He further submits that the goods have been detained on the ground that the goods were not on the regular route but on a different route and the truck driver had given a statement that instead of Robertsganj the goods were to be unloaded at Ghaziabad as well as no document was produced for unloading the goods at Ghaziabad.

6. He further submits that at the time of physical verification the goods were found as Arecanut/Betul Nut but without any rhyme or reason the goods were alleged to be different and treated the same as Processed Betul Nut to which higher rate of tax is applicable. He further submits that neither any adequate report has been obtained nor any expert report were obtained and to the contrary at the time of physical verification the goods found which were uploaded in MOV 04 do not refer to processed betul nut except the Arecaut/betul nut, therefore the view taken by the authorities are illegal, without any basis, therefore, bad.

7.