The challenge in the writ petition is to Ext.P9 order passed by the respondent, confirming a demand of tax and penalty pursuant to a detention of a vehicle that was carrying goods belonging to the petitioner. In the writ petition, the challenge against Ext.P9 order is mainly on the contention that, while in response to the notice received by the petitioner, he had clearly indicated that a substantial part of the turnover pertained to goods that were meant for export that were not liable to tax under the GST Act, the said contention was not examined by the respondent while passing Ext.P9 order. It is stated therefore that Ext.P9 order is vitiated by a non-application of mind by the respondent.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent.

3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I find from a perusal of Ext.P9 that the contention of the petitioner regarding export of goods was not considered by the respondent in Ext.P9, although the said contention was raised in Ext.P7 reply submitted by the petitioner. In my view, the said nonconsideration vitiates Ext.P9 order. I, therefore, quash Ext.P9 order and direct the respondent to pass fresh orders in lieu thereof, after hearing the petitioner and after specifically referring to the contentions in Ext.P7 reply submitted by the petitioner. To enable the respondent to do so, I direct the petitioner to appear before the respondent at his office at 11 A.M. on 15.11.2019. The respondent shall pass fresh orders, as directed, within a month thereafter.