The court determined that ongoing proceedings under the CGST Act do not warrant judicial interference at this stage.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a logistics provider and as part of the business, the petitioner had carried out certain transport from Bangalore to Ernakulam. While in transit, the vehicle which was used by the petitioner was intercepted and based on the same, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, on the reason that the vehicle in which the goods carried was bearing registration No.KA03 AL 6996, whereas, the number of the vehicle mentioned in the E-way bill was, KA-51 AF 9286. As part of the proceedings, the penalty is proposed by issuing a show cause notice under Section under Section 129 (3) of the CGST Act , in Form MOV-06 and MOV-07, which is produced as Ext.P7. The petitioner is challenging the aforesaid proceedings in this writ petition and the relief sought are as follows:

“i. Issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P4 order of detention under Sec 129(1) of the CGST Act , and a consequent show-cause notice under Sec 129(3), asking why the proposed penalty should not be imposed vide MOV -06 dated 17.2.2026 and MOV -07 dated 13.02.2026 issued by the 4th Respondent and quash the same as illegal.

ii. Declare Exhibit P4 as illegal.

iii. Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order, direction directing the 4th Respondent to release the consignments covered by Exhibit P1 invoices and Exhibit P2 e-

way bills without further delay.

iv. Grant such other reliefs as this Court deems fit and proper.”

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that, as far as the proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act is concerned, the same is now in progress and the contentions raised by the petitioner do not disclose any justifiable reason to interfere in the said proceedings at this juncture. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised various contentions with regard to the nature of the discrepancies found, as according to him, it was a mistake occurred on the part of the person concerned, in updating the vehicle number in the E-way bill and therefore, he seeks interference.

3. However, that is also a matter which is now pending consideration before the authorities concerned. Therefore, I am of the view that, this is not a fit case in which the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to be invoked.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue the remedies. It is clarified that, the dismissal of this writ petition will not preclude the petitioner from invoking his remedies including approaching this Court, in case the timeline contemplated under Section 129 of the CGST Act , read with the circular No. 41/15/2018-GST dated 13th April 2018, is not followed by the authorities concerned.

Sd/-