2020 (5) TMI 309 - HC - GST

Validity of action of the respondent No.2 to stop the goods and conveyance - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The order in form GST MOV-11 has already been passed by the concerned authority. It is suggestive of the fact that the final order of confiscation of the goods and conveyance has been passed. In such circumstances, we decline to interfere in the matter. We relegate the writ applicant to prefer a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the G.S.T. Act before the appellate authority. It is clarified that pending the appeal that may be filed by the writ applicant, it shall also be open for the writ applicant to prefer an application under Section 67(6) of the Act for the provisional release of the goods upon execution of a bond and furnishing of a security or on payment of applicable tax, penalty and interest payable. If any such application is filed, the concerned authority shall look into the same and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of one week from the date of receipt of such application. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Writ petition seeking quashing of actions by respondent to stop goods and conveyance.
2. Request for interim relief for release of goods and conveyance.
3. Seeking any other appropriate order or relief.

Analysis:
1. The High Court heard multiple writ applications with similar issues and disposed of them together. The lead matter was Special Civil Application No.7046 of 2020. The writ applicant sought a writ of mandamus to quash the respondent's actions of stopping goods and conveyance, declaring them illegal and violative of natural justice and relevant laws.

2. The court heard arguments from the counsel for the writ applicant and the Government Pleader. It noted that the authority had already issued an order for the confiscation of goods and conveyance. Consequently, the court declined to intervene and advised the writ applicant to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act before the appellate authority. The court further allowed the writ applicant to seek provisional release of goods by filing an application under Section 67(6) of the Act, subject to certain conditions.

3. In conclusion, the High Court disposed of all three writ applications with directions for the writ applicant to pursue statutory remedies through appeal and application for provisional release of goods. The court emphasized compliance with the law and set a timeline for the concerned authority to process any such applications promptly.