1. This is a petition preferred under Articles 19 and 226 of the Constitution of India raising the grievance against the respondents for highhandedness of detaining the vehicle alongwith the goods at Songadh Post without following the due procedure of law.

2. Since all the three petitions involve almost identical questions of facts and law, they are being decided by a common order, the facts for the purpose of adjudication are drawn from Special Civil Application No.6804 of 2021.

2.1 The petitioner is the sole proprietor of the firm, M/s. S. R. Matches, registered under the provisions of the Central GST Act, 2017 and also having the GSTIN No.33BENPM6902DIZN. It is dealing with the production and supply of Safety Matches all over India. The petitioner is also filing GST return regularly and has not defaulted till date.

3. His grievance is that on receiving the order from M/s. Shree Bankey Bihari Trading Co., Hissar for the supply of 488 bundles of Assorted Safety Matches of ₹ 1,01,114/­ alongwith 12% IGST, the dispatch had been made by the petitioner from Shri Rangavilas Lorry Transport Kovilpatti in Truck No.TN­88­ C­7151 and an invoice dated 10.3.2021 was raised by the petitioner. An e­way bill have also been generated with validity upto 26.3.2021 on the very day i.e. on 10.3.2021.

4. The transporter had three routes to reach to the destination, one of which was via Gujarat. Considering the nature of road, mileage and safety, the transporter chose to travel via Gujarat as averred. There is no substantial difference in the length of journey, according to the petitioner. When the truck reached Songadh Post in Surat, Gujarat, the truck was stopped by the respondent No.4 on 19.3.2021 on the pretext of physical verification and under­valuation on exercising the powers under Section 68 of the CGST Act, 2017. Statement of the driver was recorded by law and copies of Form GST MOV­01 and MOV­02 were issued by the respondent No.4 which form part of this petition.

5. On the very day on 19.3.2021 the respondent No.4 issued order of detention under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 under the Form GST MOV­06 on the ground that the goods loaded could have been taken via other route which was shorter and instead 450 km long route has been taken via Gujarat and therefore, there is possibility of delivery of the goods in Gujarat or to the nearer place to Gujarat. This detention order does not make whisper of any under­valuation of the goods. In a representation made on 22.3.2021 for release of the goods and the vehicle, authority has not paid any heed to such a request and a show cause notice on 24.3.2021 of the Act is issued under GST MOV­ 10 under Section 130 of the CGST, 2017 rather than issuing show cause (SCN) notice under Section 129(3) of the Act. In the SCN grounds mentioned are of the longer route and an additional ground of under­valuation and detention of the driver. This action according to the petitioner can be termed as the non­est in law.

5.1 The present petition is therefore, preferred with the following prayers :­

“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction, directing the Respondent authorities to release Truck No. TN­88­C­7151 along with goods therein and be pleased to quash and set aside the detention of the said Truck the same being in contravention with the provisions of the Central Goods & Service Tax, 2017;

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or direction, directing the Respondent authorities to Mr. Dhanpal Muthuswami, driver of the Truck No. TN­ 88­C­7151.

(C) Pending Admission and Final hearing of this Petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to release the Truck No. TN­88­C­ 7151 along with the goods and the driver of the truck, Mr. Mr. Dhanpal Muthuswami.”

6. Learned advocate Mr. Manan Paneri appeared with learned advocate Mr. Darshan Patel and learned Mr. Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP appeared on an advance copy, have been heard at length.

7. Learned advocate Mr. Paneri in his submissions has emphasized that it was a choice of the transporter to take any of the three routes and it can never be the ground of suspicion much less of detention. He has heavily relied on the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Synergy Fertichem Pvt. Ltd., vs. State of Gujarat, Special Civil Application No.4730 of 2019 and allied matters, wherein the Court has given the detailed guidelines as to what are the requirements before the authorities to exercise the powers of detention. This has not been followed and straightway notice is issued under Section 130 of the Act without any application of mind and without there being any foundation for issuance of such show cause notice.

8. Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP has refuted empathetically that there has been any detention of truck driver. According to her, if at all the driver concerned is taking care of the vehicle, it is a different matter, but otherwise, he is free to go wherever he chooses. She has emphasized that the show cause notice requires the adjudication any consideration of grievance of the petitioner in any manner would amount to intervention at the stage of SCN, which is undesirable. She has ensured the adjudication at the earliest once the parties are sent to the concerned authorities.

9. Noticing the fact that the petitioner had sought the time before the respondent No.4 for the hearing of the show cause notice twice, only on the ground of the matter pending before the concerned authority for adjudication, we deem it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the concerned officer for adjudication of the show cause notice without entering into merits of the matter. Accordingly the following directions:­

10. The parties are relegated to the respondent authorities for adjudication of SCN within one week. The averments made in this petition shall be construed by the respondent as the reply to the show cause notice. Over and above the same, if there are any additions to be made by the petitioners, the same shall be filed through electronic mode. The same be submitted to the concerned authority. On taking into consideration reply and other materials, let the same be adjudicated on or before 30.4.2021. The time line as stipulated for adjudication if is not adhered to the petitioner shall be at liberty to revive these petitions. The respondent authority shall bear in mind the decided case law on the subject at the time of adjudicating the show cause notice and regard all contentions in accordance with law, without being influenced by the disposal of these matters as the merit has not been considered by the Court.

11. All the three petitions are disposed of accordingly.