2020 (4) TMI 457 - HC - GST

Confiscation of goods - failure to produce E-way bill - Section 129 of the Act - Principles of natural justice - providing of reasonable opportunity of hearing by the authority concerned before passing the final order of confiscation - Release of vehicle alongwith the goods - HELD THAT - The writ- applicant was directed to appear before the authority concerned on 05.04.2019 at 11.00 a.m. Despite the same, the impugned order came to be passed on the very same day i.e. 05.04.2019 on which the writ applicant was supposed to remain present for the purpose of hearing. On this short ground alone, we are inclined to quash the impugned order of confiscation passed by the authority concerned in Form GST MOV- 11. The impugned order in the Form GST- 11 is hereby quashed and set aside - matter is remitted to the respondent no.1 for fresh adjudication - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Seizure of goods due to failure to produce E-way bill.
2. Final order of confiscation passed by the authority.
3. Compliance with principles of natural justice in the confiscation proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The writ-application involved a case where goods were seized as the E-way bill was not produced during transportation, leading to confiscation proceedings under Section 129 of the Act. The petitioners contended that the goods were accompanied by necessary documents but lacked the E-way bill during seizure.
2. The subject matter of challenge was the final order of confiscation passed by the authority in Form GST MOV-11. The court noted discrepancies in the proceedings, including blank noting sheets in the officer's file, raising concerns about the lack of proper documentation and procedural irregularities.
3. The court examined whether the writ-applicant had been afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the final order of confiscation. It was observed that despite a direction to appear before the authority on a specific date, the impugned order was passed on the same day, indicating a violation of natural justice principles.
4. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order of confiscation and remitted the matter to the respondent for fresh adjudication. The respondent was instructed to issue a notice to the writ-applicant for a proper hearing, emphasizing the importance of adherence to procedural fairness and the opportunity to present a case effectively.
5. The writ-application was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was directed to be resolved within four weeks from the date of the order. The judgment highlighted the significance of procedural regularity and the right to a fair hearing in confiscation proceedings under the GST Act.