JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Aditya Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agarwal learned counsel for the revenue.

2. Present petition has been filed to quash the order MOV-09 and the recovery notice GST DRC-07, both dated 16.1.2023 demanding Rs. 6,17,087/- by way of penalty under Section 129 (1)(b) of the UPGST Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Further prayer has been made to quash the detention order dated 07.1.2023 on GST MOV-06.

3. At the outset, Sri Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner has confined the prayer in the writ petition to release of the goods and vehicle in accordance with provisions of Section 129 (1)(a) of the Act. Prayer to quash the entire proceedings has not been pressed at this stage.

4. Briefly, petitioner claims to be a registered trader in iron scrap. It further claims to have dispatched certain goods to M/s Harshika Steel Sales against its regular tax invoice and E-way bill dated 02.1.2023, on truck bearing registration No. PB11- CQ-2981. Goods are thus claimed to have dispatched from Kanpur to Ludhiana in State of Punjab.

5. During the course of such transportation, the goods were detained by respondent No.2 on 04.1.2023. They were detained upon statement of the driver of the truck being recorded. It does not appear to be the case of the revenue that the tax invoice and E-way bill relied by the petitioner were not produced by the driver of the truck at the time of detention of the goods. Rather, it appears to be admitted case, such documents were produced at the time of first interception. However, the revenue authorities entertained a doubt as to the genuineness of the consignee. Reference has been made to the tax invoice dated 02.1.2023 and E-way bill also dated 02.1.2023, found accompanying the goods.

6. Relying on Circular dated 31.12.2018 issued by Government of India, Clause 6, it has been submitted, in face of the tax invoice and the E-way bill produced by the petitioner, the goods may not have been treated as not traceable to a registered dealer. At most, security may have been demanded in terms of Section 129 (1)(a) of the Act but not under Section 129 (b) of the Act. Reliance has been placed on two earlier orders of coordinate bench of this Court in Writ Tax No. 1580 of 2022 (M/s Margo Brush India and Others v. State of U.P. and Others), decided on 16.1.2023 and Writ Tax No. 28 of 2023(M/s Riya Traders v. State of U.P. and Another), decided on 17.1.2023.

7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has referred to the averments made in the counter affidavit indicating certain other discrepancies noted in the transaction with respect to the place of origin and destination. Then, reference has been made to the fact that registration of the petitioner was suspended on 05.1.2023. Also, reference has been made to panchnama document where under allegedly the proprietor of the petitioner firm denied knowledge about the transaction.

8. Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, while the revenue seeks to raise disputes based on its ex parte enquiries and other circumstance, upon query made, learned Standing Counsel could not dispute that at present the revenue has not formed any opinion to falsify the genuineness of the tax invoice and the E-way bill claimed by the petitioner. It also does not dispute that those documents were found present on the vehicle in question at the time of its first detention. It is further not in dispute that the present petitioner claims to be the owner of the goods. Accordingly, petitioner may remain liable to pay security in terms of Section 129 (1)(a) of the Act.

9. The coordinate bench i