Case-1-Thoppil Agencies v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes  120 taxmann.com 18 (Karnataka)
Issue: Several documents relied upon by in the impugned order E were neither brought to the notice of the petitioner nor was he permitted to cross-examine the witnesses with reference to the said documents.
Facts- In addition to making submissions with regard to the various contentions urged by the petitioner in the petition with reference to the documents and the impugned order, petitioner submitted that impugned order was violative of principles of natural justice. It was pointed out that perusal of show-cause notice will indicate that only certain documents have been referred and that the same has been duly replied to by the petitioner. However, without giving any personal hearing to the petitioner and without affording sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, respondent proceeded to pass impugned order placing reliance upon several documents which were never brought to notice of petitioner prior to passing of impugned order.
Held- The High Court without going into the legal and factual aspects of the matter, was of the opinion that
1. Several documents and circumstances which were neither referred to nor enumerated in the show cause notice at Annexure-B4 have been relied upon by the respondent No. 1 in the impugned order.
2. It was also not in dispute that no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order.
3. The material on record also indicates that several documents relied upon by the respondent No. 1 in the impugned order at Annexure-E were neither brought to the notice of the petitioner nor was he permitted to cross-examine the witnesses with reference to the said documents.
4. Further, no opportunity to produce additional documents was given to the petitioner.
The High Court held that aforesaid facts and circumstances indicate that in the absence of sufficient and reasonable opportunity being granted in favour of the petitioner, the impugned order is clearly in contravention of principles of natural justice and that the same deserves to be set aside on this ground alone and the matter deserves to be remitted back to the respondent No. 1 to consider and dispose off the same afresh in accordance with law after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his contentions and documents and to hear the petitioner before passing suitable orders.
Case-2- M.S. Steel and Pipes v. Assistant State Tax Officer  119 taxmann.com 211 (Kerala)
Issue-Non-mentioning of Tax on E-Way Bill cannot be a ground for detention of Goods
Facts- The reason for detention was that, while consignment was supported by an invoice which contained details of goods transported as also tax paid in respect of goods, there was no mention of the tax amounts separately in the e-way bill that accompanied the goods. The respondents therefore detained goods on the ground that there was no valid e-way bill, supporting transportation in question.
Held- A reading of the said Rule clearly indicates that the e-way bill has to be in FORM GST EWB-01, and in that format, there is no field wherein the transporter is required to indicate the tax amount payable in respect of the goods transported. If the statutorily prescribed form does not contain a field for entering the details of the tax payable in the e-way bill, then the non-mentioning of the tax amount cannot be seen as an act in contravention of the rules.
In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the transpiration was covered by a valid tax invoice, which clearly showed the tax collected in respect of the goods and an e-way bill in the prescribed format in FORM GST EWB-01. Since there was no contravention by the petitioner of any provision of the Act or Rule for the purposes of Section 129, the detention in the instant case cannot be said to be justified.
Case-3- Devices Distributors v. Assistant State Tax Officer  118 taxmann.com 136 (Kerala)
Issue-Goods detained as the Invoices accompanying the goods were not of continuous serial number
Facts- The objection of the respondent was essentially with regard to the invoices that accompanied the transportation of the goods. It was found that the tax invoices furnished, although carried serial numbers, they were not consecutive for the three invoices. In particular, it was noticed that while one invoice carried the serial number as 46000152. The other two invoices carried the serial numbers 53000029 and 53000030. The detaining authority, therefore, suspected that the invoices carrying the serial numbers in between the two sets of invoices indicated above might have been used for transportation of other goods that were not brought to the notice of the Department.
Held: In the instant case, e-way bills did accompany the goods. The transportation was covered by tax invoices. The objection of the respondents is only that the invoices did not bear continuous numbers and hence they suspect that the invoices bearing serial numbers that fell between the numbers on the invoices produced at the time of transportation, could have been used for transportation of other goods that had not been brought to the notice of the Department.
THE High Court held that entertainment of such a doubt by the authority cannot be a justification for detaining the goods in question, especially when they were admittedly accompanied by tax invoices as also e-way bills that clearly indicated the particulars that were required by Rule 46 of the GST Rules. It is also relevant to note that the doubt entertained by the respondents were, at any rate, in respect of goods that may have been transported under cover of the invoices that numerically fell between the numbers shown in the invoices that were carried along with the goods, and in that sense, pertained to goods other than those that were actually detained. The detention in the instant case cannot be justified under section 129 of the GST Act.