The petitioner aggrieved by the impugned endorsement passed by the first respondent dated 23.07.2020, filed this writ petition.

2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a transport contractor duly registered under the GST Act and Rules. The petitioner hired goods conveyance of third party M/s Arjun Trading Co. Salem, to transport metal scap consignment on 02.11.2019 through the Brach office at Selam, Tamilnadu to New Delhi. The petitioner checked the invoice and E way bill raised with reference to the goods and found that consignor M/s Arjun Trading Co. is existing dealer in Salem jurisdiction and has valid and existing registration number. The documents tendered were genuine. The transporter for onward journey via Bengaluru to New Delhi hired the goods vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-14/Government Advocate-6359.

3. The second respondent intercepted the goods conveyance at a place near second gate N.H.50, Hospet on 03.11.2019 and initiated proceedings under Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017 (‘the Act’, for short) and detained the goods conveyance. The second respondent doubted the bonafide of the consigner. The consigner took all the steps to show his bonafide. However, second respondent during the lockdown period, without giving an opportunity to produce evidence from Selam, hurriedly passed the order and concluded the proceedings under Section 129 of the Act and levied tax and penalty. The consigner aggrieved by the same, filed a writ petition in W.P.NO.116940/2019 challenging the legality and validity of the penalty order passed under Section 129 of the Act. Due to the lockdown announced by the Government, neither the consigner nor this petitioner could appear before the respondent to prove their bonafide. The second respondent passed the first confiscation order dated 30.03.2020 vide Annexure-C. However, putting the same date, the second respondent has passed a withdrawal of confiscation order dated 30.03.2020 under Section 130 of the Act vide Annexure-D. The petitioner aggrieved by the order, preferred an appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent without considering the material on record rejected the appeal by the order dated 23.07.2020. Hence, the petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the first respondent, filed this writ petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent without considering the material placed by the petitioner has issued the impugned endorsement and further the first respondent has not considered the appeal on merits and rejected on unwarranted grounds. He further submits that the first respondent without providing an opportunity to the petitioner has issued the impugned endorsement. Thus, the impugned endorsement is in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, he prays to allow the writ petition.

6. Learned A.G.A. fairly concedes that the first respondent has not assigned any reasons while rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. He also fairly concedes that no opportunity was granted to the petitioner before issuing the impugned endorsement.

7. Heard and perused the records.

8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the second respondent, filed an appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent without assigning any reasons has rejected the appeal by issuing the impugned endorsement. Thus, the impugned endorsement issued by the first respondent is not a speaking order. Though the petitioner placed material before the first respondent, without considering the same, merely on the ground that the writ petition filed by the consigner, which is pending, rejected the appeal. The first respondent without application of mind has proceeded to reject the appeal which is arbitrary and in contravention of principles of natural justice. The said endorsement is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement No.JCCT (AP) DVG/T.297/2020 dated 23.07.2020 vide Annexure-G is set aside. The matter is remitted to first respondent to reconsider the appeal and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.