2021 (2) TMI 1252 - HC - GST

Release of confiscated conveyance alongwith the goods - non-speaking order - invocation of writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution - HELD THAT - This writ application against the final order passed by the Authority concerned in MOV-11 confiscating the goods and the conveyance, should not be entertained. The entire evidence will have to be looked into which has come on record. In such circumstances, the writ applicant herein as well as the applicant of the Civil Application are relegated to prefer an appropriate appeal under Section 107 of the Act before the Appellate Authority. If any such Appeals are filed, the Appellate Authority shall look into those and decide them in accordance with the law expeditiously. We clarify that even pending the Appeals, it shall be open for the writ applicant herein being the owner of the goods and the applicant of the Civil Application being the owner of the conveyance to prefer an appropriate application for the provisional release of the goods as well as the conveyance. This writ application stands disposed off.

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods and conveyance under Section 130 of the GST Act, 2017.
2. Validity of the impugned order under MOV-11.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in lieu of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Act.
4. Provisional release of goods and conveyance pending appeal.
5. Entertaining appeals by the Appellate Authority without declining on grounds of limitation.

Issue 1: Confiscation of goods and conveyance under Section 130 of the GST Act, 2017:
The writ applicant, a dealer under the GST, sought relief against the impugned orders and show cause notice under Forms MOV-06, MOV-10, and MOV-11 for the release of goods and conveyance detained by the Respondent no.2. The impugned order under Section 130 of the GST Act in MOV-11 confiscated the goods and conveyance due to the inability to prove the genuineness of the purchase. The State Tax Officer passed the order stating that the dealer failed to provide proof of movement of goods purchased, indicating that only bills were purchased, not goods. The Court noted that the entire evidence needs to be examined, and the writ applicant was directed to file an appeal under Section 107 of the Act before the Appellate Authority for further consideration.

Issue 2: Validity of the impugned order under MOV-11:
The writ applicant contended that the impugned order confiscating the goods and conveyance was a non-speaking order. The respondent argued that the order, though cryptic, conveyed the necessary information in the circumstances of the case. The Court observed that the Authority had conveyed its decision in the impugned order. However, the Court refrained from entertaining the writ application against the final order, emphasizing that the Appellate Authority should review the matter under Section 107 of the Act.

Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The Court deliberated on the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in comparison to filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Act. It directed the writ applicant and the owner of the conveyance to pursue an appeal before the Appellate Authority for a thorough examination of the evidence and a decision based on merit. The Court clarified that the High Court should not entertain the writ application against the final order of confiscation.

Issue 4: Provisional release of goods and conveyance pending appeal:
The Court allowed the possibility of provisional release of goods and the vehicle subject to certain terms and conditions during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Authority. It highlighted that the Appellate Authority possesses inherent power to pass interim orders, even if there is no provision similar to Sub-section 6 of Section 67 in Section 107 of the Act. The Court advised the writ applicant and the owner of the conveyance to apply for provisional release if needed.

Issue 5: Entertaining appeals by the Appellate Authority without declining on grounds of limitation:
The Court emphasized that the Appellate Authority should not dismiss appeals on the basis of limitation, considering that the writ applicant and the owner of the conveyance chose to approach the High Court initially. The Court clarified that any delay should not hinder the consideration of appeals on their merits by the Appellate Authority, ensuring that the parties have the opportunity to present their case without being restricted by time constraints.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the various issues addressed by the High Court concerning the confiscation of goods and conveyance under the GST Act, the validity of the impugned order, the jurisdiction of the High Court, provisional release of goods pending appeal, and the consideration of appeals by the Appellate Authority without limitations.

← Previous Next →