ORDER

The petitioner claims to be engaged in supply and manufacture of enamelled copper for which the raw material is copper scrap. It had purchased copper scrap weighing 25,110 Kilograms that was transported in a vehicle intercepted by the Roving Squad at Dharmapuri on 13.05.2022. The transporter was in possession of e-invoice and e-way bill that was handed over for physical verification. The vehicle was however detained, the reason citing ‘suspected transaction’. An order of detention was issued on 13.05.2022 which is to the effect that the transaction appeared to be ‘doubtful’ and hence the transaction required further adjudication.

2. A notice under Section 129 (3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (‘Act’) proposing penalty under the aforesaid provisions was issued and after considering the response filed by the petitioner, an order has come to be passed on 27.05.2022 as against which the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The petitioner has, before the authority, made the same submission as it makes before this Court now, that detention cannot be based upon a mere suspicion and something more tangible, indicating violation or infraction of the law ought to have been in possession of the respondents. That apart the petitioner also sought cross-examination of various persons in support of their stand.

4. The response of the petitioner has been rejected including the request for cross-examination. The authority rejects the request, relying upon a communication from the vendor to the effect that the ownership of the consignment has been transferred to the petitioner and with it, the requirement of compliance with all connected formalities, were to be completed by the petitioner alone.

5. The Officer has also culled also information from the toll booths from Assam to the point of destination i.e., Coimbatore to test the claim of the petitioner that the goods originated from Guwahati. The toll booths enroute between Guwahati and Telangana did not indicate any movement of the vehicle in question in that sector and records of movement were available only from Telangana onwards.

6. This has led to the suspicion that the point of origination of goods is Telangana and not Guwahati as claimed. Though this point was specifically put to the petitioner in the course of adjudication proceedings and the petitioner could very well have produced the toll receipts or any other information/material in its possession to disprove the suspicion, this does not appear to have been done. It is on the basis of the aforesaid discussion that the impugned order has to be passed.

7. I am of the view that no violation amenable to Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been made out by the petitioner. No doubt, the petitioner may still have in its possession/material to disprove the conclusions of the respondent authorities. However, consideration of such information, if at all, would involve an examination of disputed facts which this Court is not inclined to embark upon in a writ petition.

8. In light of the discussion as above, this writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner has an efficacious, alternate remedy provided under Section 107 of the aforesaid Act and is at liberty to approach the Respondent/Appellate Authority as expeditiously it desires. It is also a settled position that an Appellate Authority has all powers incidental and ancillary to the power of disposal of an appeal that include powers of grant of interim protection and release of seized material.

9. The petitioner is thus also at liberty to seek interim protection including provisional release of the vehicle/its contents. Such interim application if filed shall be disposed by the Appellate Authority after hearing the petitioner in accordance with law and within a period of one (1) week from the date of its disposal.

10. Incidentally the petitioner relies upon Circular No. 10/2019 dated 31.05.2019 enumerating circumstances where no penalty may be levied by the Roving Squad, carving out exceptions and relaxing the rigour of Section 129. Such issues include, disputes involving rate of tax, classification of goods, place of supply and valuation of goods. In the present case, the issue relates to ‘place of origin of goods’ which issue does not stand covered by the situation mentioned therein. This writ petition stands dismissed though with liberty as aforesaid. Connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed. No Costs.