The Allahabad High Court has upheld the detention order by the GST department and held that the statement of driver obtained at first instance has more sanctity than explanation furnished later.
The bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal has held that no material has been brought on record to show that the statement of the driver was made under duress or otherwise. It is not the case of the petitioner that the signature of the driver was obtained on plain paper and thereafter, the contents have been filled up. Once the statement of the driver was not rebutted at any stage, the orders cannot be said to be arbitrary. The statement of the driver made at the first instance should be given more sanctity than the explanation furnished at a later stage.
The petitioner, a proprietorship firm with GST registration, had purchased goods from M/s Jai Durga Scrape Traders, Aligarh, under Tax Invoice No. 56 dated 15.08.2022 worth ₹5,62,559, transported in Truck No. UP 81 W 7624.
After delivery, the goods were reloaded for further sale to SSC Enterprises, Muzaffar Nagar, with a new Tax Invoice No. 35 dated 16.08.2022, and an e-way bill was generated. On 17.08.2022, while the truck was traveling from Aligarh to Muzaffar Nagar, it was intercepted by the Mobile Squad. The driver’s statement was recorded in MOV-01, physical verification was done (MOV-04), and the goods were detained.
Despite the petitioner’s detailed reply to the notice, the officer passed the order dated 18.08.2022, imposing tax and penalty. The petitioner’s appeal against this order was dismissed on 14.07.2023, leading to the writ petition.
At the time of interception, the driver of the vehicle made a categorical statement that the goods were loaded at the godown situated at Iglass on 16.08.2022 from morning to evening and after the goods were loaded, the same directly moved from Aligarh By-pass to Bulandshahar to Meerut. The driver also categorically stated that no goods were ever loaded and transported from Aligarh to Iglass.
The petitioner contended that the goods of the petitioner were seized without any basis. At the time of seizure, all material was available and only on the basis of presumption, surmises and conjectures, the goods were detained, which is not permissible under the Act. The seizure of the goods were made on the premise of availing wrongful ITC.
The department contended that at the time of interception, the driver made the statement, which clearly demolishes the stand of the petitioner. The driver of the vehicle has made a statement that the truck was loaded on 16.08.2022 from morning to evening. Further, the driver has categorically made a statement that no goods were brought from Aligarh to Iglass. He further submits that the statement of the driver obtained/given at the first instance has more sanctity than the explanation furnished later.
The court while dismissing the petition held that in absence of any rebuttal by the petitioner that the statement of the driver was made in duress or otherwise, the statement given by the driver at the first instance has more value than the explanation furnished at a later stage.
Case Details
Case Title: M/S Aasar Scrap Traders Versus State Of UP
Case No.: Writ Tax No. – 1223 Of 2023
Date: 22/09/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Pranjal Shukla
Counsel For Respondent: CSC
Read More: CEC Proposals May Render Homes, Schools, Shops and Institutions “Illegal” in Meghalaya
