The petitioner by filing the present petition is assailing the order dated 11.11.2020 (Annexure P/2) which has been passed by the respondent no.2 under section 129 (3) of the GST Act, 2017 (hereinafter shall be referred as ‘the Act, 2017’). The petitioner is also assailing the appellate order dated 25.06.2021 which has been passed by the respondent no.3 under section 107 of the Act, 2017 and the petitioner is further praying that respondents department be directed to conduct a fresh inspection of the goods consigned in vehicle bearing no. HR-38-X-1576 which is in custody of the respondent department as on date.

2. The facts reveal that a vehicle being bearing registration no. HR-38-X- 1576 which was owned by the petitioner was stopped by the officer of the respondent department on Lakhnadon bye-pass (NH-26) and, upon inspection of the vehicle, it was found that the goods in the vehicle were not as per the invoices and e-way bill accompanied with the consignment. As a consequence thereof, an order of penalty was passed under section 129 (3) of the GST Act, 2017 on 11/11/2020 and while passing the said order, the authority observed that the goods which were loaded in the vehicle were not as per the invoices and therefore, the transportation of the goods was an attempt to escape from the liability under provisions of the Act, 2017 and therefore, an order of penalty was passed against the petitioner.

3. It further appears that the order imposing penalty was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the respondent no.3 under section 107 of the Act, 2017 however, the appellate authority also dismissed the appeal.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a proper inspection ought to have been carried out inasmuch as the inspection was not carried out in accordance with law, as the driver, who was plying the vehicle did not have in his possession the entire documents. Accordingly, the counsel prays that the order impugned be quashed and the matter be remanded back to the respondent department to conduct a fresh inspection of the goods consigned in the vehicle bearing no. HR-38-X-1576.

5. Per contra, the counsel for the respondents has supported the order passed by the original as well as the appellate authority contained in Annexure P/2 and Annexure P/4.

6. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the rival parties and upon sifting the entire documents produced including the order inpugned, it reveals that the vehicle in question was carrying the goods in excess of the bilti as well as e-way bill which is evident from the operative paragraph of the appellate authority which finds mention at page no. 56 of the writ petition. Thus, the authorities under the statute were competent to carry out the inspection and upon inspection, the authorities found that the transportation was in violation of the statutory provisions contained in the Act,2017 and the rules made thereunder and therefore, rightly passed the order of the penalty. Apparently, the entire foundation of the case is based on factual background and no question of law is involved in the matter. The petitioner has further failed to demonstrate as to what legal right of the petitioner has been violated and thus, since the issue involved with the petition is infact pertains to the decision based on facts and do not suffer from any contravention of any statutory provisions or non-compliance of the principle of natural justice, therefore, we find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition so filed by the petitioner is dismissed. However, no order as to costs.