Mr. K. De, learned Addl. Government Advocate waived Rule on behalf of the respondents. He has already filed the reply opposing the petition. Considering the short issue involved we have taken up the petition for final disposal at this stage.
Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner in the course of executing a work order issued by the IOCL, the petitioner had transported one thousand LPG cylinders from Guwahati for delivery in Tripura. According to the petitioner, there was some delay on part of the transporters in starting the outward journey and on account of which when the driver of the vehicle carrying the cylinders was intercepted by the State GST authorities, they have found that the E-Way bill had expired. The vehicle and the goods were detained and finally the authorities passed the impugned order dated 09.12.2020 levying tax of ₹ 2,24,736/- and penalty of ₹ 10,23794/-, total of which comes to ₹ 12,48,530/-. The petitioner has challenged the said order on various grounds. The case of the petitioner is that though the authorities were well aware about the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the goods, no notice to the petitioner was issued. The petitioner had made representations and communications to the authorities before the said order was passed which were not taken into account. The petitioner is in the regular business of manufacture of LPG cylinders and the breach was a technical one.
Counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the petition contending that notice was served on the driver of the vehicle who was in charge of the goods. It was his duty thereafter to communicate the proceedings to the petitioner. The authorities have come to a proper conclusion since no representation was made on behalf of the assessee. In absence of valid E-Way bills the authority has held that the goods were meant for local sale and accordingly taxed the same and also levied penalty.
It is not necessary to go into the correctness of the rival versions. In view of the fact that the petitioner did not have full opportunity to represent the case before the assessing officer, let the petitioner be given such opportunity. For such purpose, without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, impugned order dated 09.12.2020 is set aside. The petitioner shall not insist on a separate notice being issued and appear before the said authority and file the objections within a period of two weeks from today. The assessing officer shall pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and considering the representation that may be made. No useful purpose would be served in detaining the vehicle and the goods till the fresh order is passed. However, before releasing the goods and the vehicle, the petitioner must be put to some terms. We have noticed that even as per the authority while passing the final order, without the participation of the petitioner, total tax and penalty levied, came to ₹ 12,48,530/-.
Under the circumstances, the respondents shall release the vehicle and the goods upon the petitioner giving Bank guarantee of 25% of the said sum of ₹ 12,48,530/- and furnishing further Bank guarantee/immovable security for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the assessing officer. As soon as the petitioner fulfills these conditions the vehicle and the goods shall be released.
Petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.