J R Metal Chennai Limited Vs State Tax Officer
Date: July 20, 2025
Subject Matter
E-Way bill route mismatch: Detention of goods upheld as malafide intention proved
Summary
This writ petition challenges an order dated February 7, 2025, which rejected the petitioner's application to rectify a demand order dated January 28, 2025. The petitioner, a registered dealer of TMT bars, had a vehicle carrying two consignments intercepted by the GST Roving Squad on January 24, 2025, in Coimbatore. The goods were detained on the grounds of a route mismatch.
The petitioner's counsel explained that the vehicle, after unloading one consignment in Chinnavedampatti, was on its way to unload the second consignment at Nanjundapuram Road, Coimbatore, when it was intercepted. Due to a break-line failure and city traffic, the driver took a different route. The petitioner argued that the demand was confirmed without a proper hearing and that the order should be set aside. He cited several judgments from the Madras, Telangana, and Allahabad High Courts in support of his argument.
The learned Government Advocate for the respondent countered that the driver traveled a distance of 41 km, which was unnecessary as the direct route was only 9 km. This, he argued, indicated a malicious intent to illegally deliver the goods. He further contended that the impugned order had elaborately discussed the issues and included a route sketch.
The High Court, after reviewing the records, agreed with the respondent.
The Madras High Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order. It noted that the petitioner's vehicle traveled a significantly longer and unnecessary route, which suggested malafide intention. The court also distinguished the cited Madurai Bench judgment, stating it was not applicable as that case involved a driver who did not know the local language or correct route, which was not the case here.
The court dismissed the writ petition but granted the petitioner the liberty to file an appeal before the appellate authority within two weeks. This is subject to the petitioner paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Principal Government Naturopathy Medical College and Hospital. Upon production of proof of this payment, the appellate authority is directed to take the appeal on record and dispose of it expeditiously.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate (Taxes) takes notice on behalf of the respondent. With consent, the main Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
2. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order dated 07.02.2025 passed by the respondent and to quash the same.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the registered dealer of TMT bars, under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). They are the assessee on the files of Assistant Commissioner (ST), Manali Assessment Circle and are filing their monthly return through web site. Whileso, the petitioner has despatched the material vide e-invoice No.JR/24-25/7228 dated 21.01.2025 to M/s.Vigneswara Hardwares, No.587, 588, Kannimar Koil Street, Nanjundapuram Road, Coimbatore-641033. While so, the vehicle was intercepted by the Deputy Tax Officer-(Intelligence) Roving Squad III/Teax G, Coimbatore at around 11.30 P.M. on 24.01.2025 at Muthukaundanputhur, Coimbatore and after verifying the documents detained the goods alleging route mismatch. On the same day, the respondent issued notice dated 24.01.2025 and the petitioner filed his reply on 30.01.2025. But the respondent without hearing the petitioner cofirmed the demand vide order dated 28.01.2025. It is further stated that the petitioner filed an application on 05.02.2025 to rectify the order dated 28.01.2025 before the respondent. But the respondent without considering the case of the petitioner rejected the application on 07.02.2025 and the said order is impugned in this writ petition.
3.1. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner that totally the petitioner’s vehicle was loaded with two consignments one containing 18010 kgs, pertaining to Tvl. Sri Vigneswara Hardwares. No.125, Pankajamill road, and other containing 15780 kgs pertaining to Tvl.Shree Saraswathi steels, Chinnavedampatti, Coimbatore. The petitioner reached the Coimbatore on 24.01.2025 at 4.30 A.M. at Chinavedampatti and around 12.30 P.M. after unloading the goods at Tvl.Shree Saraswathi Steels, Chinnavedampatti, Coimbatore, at 10.30 P.M. he started from Chinnavedampatti to Ramanathapuram to deliver the goods to M/s.Vigneswara Hardwares and due to breakline failure of vehicle and traffic in City, the vehicle was moved to city outer via saravanapatti to Ramanathapuram to unload the goods at Tvl. Sri Vigeswara Haradwares, Ramanathapuram. While so, at 11.30 P.M., the roving squad has incepted the vehicle of the petitioner and detained the goods. Further, he would submit that the without considering the objections of the petitioner, impugned proceedings came to be issued. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the decision of the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.1287 of 2019 dated 2019 dated 24.01.2019, Telangana High Court in W.P.No.2869 of 2021 dated 28.04.2021 and Allahabad High Court in W.P.No.277 of 2022 dated 03.10.2025 and prays to set aside the impugned order.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Taxes) for the respondent submitted that in the case on hand, there is no necessity to travel 41 kms to deliver the goods, when the loading point from the actual point i.e., from Chinnavedampatti where the petitioner started is only 9 kms. Therefore, with an ulterior motive, the petitioner’s driver has travelled in a different route to deliver the goods illegally. He therefore prays for dismissal of this writ petition .
5. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and upon perusal of the materials available on record it is evident that the route in which the petitioner’s vehicle was proceeding to Ramanathapuram is 41 kms from Chinnavedampatti. It is rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Taxes) appearing for the respondent, there is no necessity for the petitioner to travel 41 kms, when the actual distance from Chinnavedampatti, which is the destination point of the petitioner is only 9 kms, which clearly shows the malafide intention of the petitioner to deliver the goods illegally.
7. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the respondent has elaborately discussed all the issues with clear route sketch in which the petitioner’s vehicle has travelled. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The Judgment of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.1287/2019 dated 24.01.2019, is not applicable to the case on hand for the reason that the driver of the vehicle of the petitioner therein was not belonged to Tamil Nadu and he does not know Tamil or English and without knowing the correct route, the driver had taken the wrong route. The other Judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is also not applicable to the case on hand. If there are any factual issues, the same can be raised before the appellate authority by way of filing an appeal.
8. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition. Accordingly this Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to file appeal before the appellate authority subject to payment of a costs of Rs.10,000/- to the Principal Government Naturopathy Medical College and Hospital.
(i) The petitioner is permitted to file an appeal before the appellate authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to to payment of a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Principal Government Naturopathy Medical College and Hospital.
(ii) Upon production of proof with regard to the payment of a sum of Rs.10,000/- as stated above, the appellate authority shall take appeal on record and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.
No costs.