2020 (9) TMI 207 - HC - GST

Confiscation of goods and conveyance - Final order of confiscation - Form GST MOV-11 - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It appears that the writ applicant was not given any opportunity of hearing before the final order in Form GST MOV-11 came to be passed. Matter remitted to the respondent No.3 so as to give an opportunity to the writ applicant to make good his case why the goods and conveyance are not liable to be confiscated under Section 130 of the GST Act, 2017.

Summary

Issues:
1. Writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking various reliefs.
2. Challenge to the order dated 27.08.2020 passed by respondent No.3 in Form GST MOV-11.
3. Lack of opportunity for the writ applicant to be heard before the final order in Form GST MOV-11 was passed.

Analysis:
1. The writ applicant filed a petition seeking writs of mandamus for the release of goods and quashing of the confiscation notice. The High Court allowed the draft amendment and proceeded with the final hearing with the consent of both parties. The matter pertained to the release of a truck and its goods.

2. The challenge in this case was against the final order of confiscation of goods and conveyance dated 27.08.2020 passed by respondent No.3 in Form GST MOV-11. The Court noted that the writ applicant was not given an opportunity of hearing before this final order was issued.

3. The Court observed that the writ applicant was informed of a hearing date but had already approached the High Court challenging a prior notice. Despite this, the final order in Form GST MOV-11 was passed without giving the applicant a hearing. Due to this lack of opportunity, the Court decided to remit the matter back to respondent No.3 for a fresh hearing.

4. The Court allowed the writ application, quashed the impugned order dated 27.08.2020, and directed respondent No.3 to provide an opportunity for the writ applicant to present their case. Additionally, if there are delays in the hearing, respondent No.3 was instructed to consider the provisional release of goods under Section 67(6) of the Act.

5. The judgment emphasized that the decision was made without delving into the merits of the case and referred to a previous ruling for guidance. The Court highlighted the importance of providing a fair hearing and following due process in matters of confiscation under the GST Act.

By providing a detailed analysis of each issue involved in the judgment, the summary offers a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings and the decision rendered by the High Court.