JUDGMENT

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. - The petitioner herein is a proprietary concern engaged in the business of Iron and Steel and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the Hyderabad Rural STU-I, Centre Jurisdiction, Gajularamaram, Hyderabad (2nd respondent).

2. The petitioner was allotted GST No.36AAMPA4421B2ZC.

3. The petitioner purchased goods from a dealer M/s. JSW Steel Limited, Vidyanagar, Karnataka vide Tax Invoice No.19UJ2900401551 dt.11.12.2019 valued at Rs. 3,52,920.74.

4. Against the said tax invoice under the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act (I.G.S.T.), tax at Rs. 18% was levied coming to Rs. 63,526/-.

The plea of the petitioner

5. According to petitioner, when the consignment was coming from Vidyanagar, Karnataka with all requisite documents through a vehicle bearing No.KA 35 C 0141, it was detained at Jeedimetla at 05:30 p.m. on 12.12.2019, and a notice under Section 129 (3) of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017 (for short, 'the Act') was issued alleging 'wrong destination' and directing payment of 9% of the Central Tax and 9% of State Tax and penalty equal to tax estimating the purchase value of Rs. 11,14,579/- as against the actual tax invoice value of Rs. 4,16,447/-.

6. It is contended by the petitioner that since at that time the proprietor of the petitioner could not contest it on account of there being a marriage in his house on 12.12.2019 at Hyderabad, and since the driver of the vehicle was pressurizing for release of the vehicle, he was forced to pay the amount mentioned in the notice dt.12.12.2019 issued by the 1st respondent.

7. The petitioner further contended that the said collection of tax and penalty by the respondents is through coercion and threat in spite of the fact that the consignment was covered by all the requisite documents. It is alleged that when the goods were in transit in an inter-State sale, the respondents cannot detain the same and demand and collect the tax in the manner they have done which is arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

8. It is also contended that the 1st respondent had no authorization as contemplated under Section 67 of the Act read with Section 68 thereof and the collection of taxes under both the Central and State Acts towards G.S.T. is arbitrary and highhanded; that at best the 1st respondent can collect from the dealer a security equivalent to the amount payable under Clauses (a) or (b) in the manner prescribed in Section 129(1) of the Act; and that the reason 'wrong destination' given by the respondents is not a good and sufficient reason for levying and collecting tax and penalty from the petitioner and the detention of the goods and the vehicle as well as collection of tax and penalty, is contrary to the provisions of G.S.T. Act, 2017.

9. It is also contended that penalty cannot be levied unless there is willfulness and contumacious conduct of the dealer, and therefore, the petitioner should be granted a refund of the amount of Rs. 4,16,447/- levied and collected under both the Central Tax Act and the State Tax Act, 2017.

The stand of the 1st respondent

10. Counter-Affidavit was filed by 1st respondent contending that there was no pressure on the dealer to pay the tax and penalty; moreover a show-cause notice in Form MOV-07 was given and opportunity to file objections was also given; and there was, therefore, compliance with principles of natural justice.

11. Quoting the terms of the invoice, it was contended how the total value of the goods in the vehicle transporting them from Karnataka to Hyderabad was arrived at; that even if the goods are coming from Karnataka there is a possibility that the goods were to be sold to third-party as a local sale or not intended to be delivered at the correct place indicated in the documents being carried in the conveyance / vehicle.

12. It is further contended that if the goods were to be delivered at Balanagar according to the invoice, the vehicle cannot be at Jeedimetla since Balanagar comes first and Jeedimetla later, and no reason