2019 (8) TMI 245 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - detention under Section 129 (1) of KGST/CGST and IGST Act - HELD THAT - At threshold, writ petitions are premature without giving breathing time for the respondent, petitioner has rushed to this Court. Petitioner is permitted to file additional explanation, if any, within a period of ten days from today on receipt of additional explanation of the petitioner concerned, authority is hereby directed to pass speaking order and communicate the same at the earliest since seized materials are stated to be perishable goods. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from today. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to impugned order of detention under Section 129 (1) of KGST/CGST and IGST Act dated 08.07.2019, issuance of notice under Section 129(3) of the KGST/CGST and IGST Act, jurisdictional concerns, release of detained goods and goods conveyance, rush to court without giving breathing time, submission of explanation to summons, pending consideration before authority, permission to file additional explanation, direction to pass speaking order, communication of order, perishable goods concern.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought relief by challenging the impugned order of detention under Section 129 (1) of KGST/CGST and IGST Act dated 08.07.2019, along with the notice issued under Section 129(3) of the KGST/CGST and IGST Act. The petitioner requested the court to set aside/quash these orders as they were allegedly passed without jurisdiction. The petitioner sought the release of the detained goods and goods conveyance through a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order.

2. The petitioner alternatively requested the court to quash the impugned orders and direct the respondent to release the detained goods and goods conveyance. The petitioner also asked for the proceedings to be conducted afresh if necessary, in accordance with the law, providing all incriminating materials and a fair opportunity to be heard.

3. The court noted that the writ petitions were premature as the petitioner had not allowed sufficient time for the respondent to act. The petitioner had submitted an explanation to the summons on 8.7.2019, and the matter was pending consideration before the authority. The petitioner was allowed to file an additional explanation within ten days, and the authority was directed to pass a speaking order promptly due to the perishable nature of the seized materials.

4. The court disposed of the writ petitions with the observation that the authority should complete the necessary proceedings within four weeks from the date of the judgment. The judgment emphasized the importance of providing a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present their case and for the authority to consider all relevant materials before making a decision regarding the detained goods and goods conveyance.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal arguments, procedural aspects, and the court's directions in response to the issues raised in the judgment.