The petitioner is stated to be a proprietary concern engaged in the supply of hill produce including cardamom; and that it has been an assessee to General Sales Tax, on the rolls of the 1st respondent.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner – Sri.P.Deepak, submits that the 2nd respondent is the holder of a cardamom E-Auctioneer License, namely Ext.P1, issued by the License Board as per the Cardamom (Licensing and Marketing) Rules, 1987 and that on 01.01.2021; and that a consignment comprising 13 bags of cardamom, weighing 658 kgs having an estimated value of ₹ 12.5 lakhs, was conveyed to the petitioner by the said respondent for the purpose of auction sale on the strength of a delivery challan, supported by an E-Way bill generated by them, as is mandated under the provisions of Rule 138 of the CGST Rules, 2017.

3. Sri.Deepak alleges that even though the consignment was thus being transported validly, it was intercepted by the 1st respondent and Ext.P7 notice issued to them, for the reason that the supplier has not produced documents matching with its original destination. He asserts that the allegations in Ext.P7 are wholly baseless, since Ext.P9 circular postulates that it is only when the error in the address/pin code of the consigner or consignee mentioned has the effect of increasing the validity period of the E-Way bill,an proceedings be initiated. He thus prayed that Exts.P7 and P8 be set aside and the respondents be directed to release the consignment, along with the vehicle, to his client at the earliest.

4. In response, Smt.Thushara James – learned Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, submitted that Ext.P7 notice and P8 proceedings have been issued under a bonafide suspicion that the petitioner is attempting to use the same E-Way bill for different consignments, involving multiple transactions, thus leading to a legitimate inference of evasion of tax. She submitted that if the petitioner is willing, the consignment – being a perishable one, along with the vehicle, can be released to them, if they offer a bank guarantee for the amount mentioned in Ext.P7, so that the adjudication proceedings thereon, leading to Form MOV-09 under the CGST Rules, can be issued within two weeks from today.

5. On hearing the learned Government Pleader as afore, Sri.Deepak submitted that his client is willing to accede to her suggestion and prayed that the respondents be directed to complete the adjudication without any further delay.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee, drawn on a nationalised Bank, to secure the sum mentioned in Ext.P7 notice; and if this is done, the respondents shall release the consignment, along with the vehicle to them without any avoidable delay.

Needless to say, the respondents shall complete the adjudication based on Exts.P7 and P8 – leading to the proceedings under Form MOV-09, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner – either physically or through video-conferencing – as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and will communicate the resultant order to them.

Since the article in question is a perishable one, I direct the learned Government Pleader to communicate the contents of this judgment to the respondents, so that the petitioner, if they are able to furnish the bank guarantee today itself, can obtain release of the vehicle without any delay.