2020 (12) TMI 892 - HC - GST

Provisional release of detained goods - legality and validity of the very same action of issuing notice in Form GST MOV-10 under Section 130 of the Act on manifold grounds - Section 67(6) of GST Act - HELD THAT - We should not interfere at this point of time with the adjudication undertaken pursuant to the notice in Form GST MOV-10. Ultimately if final order of confiscation is passed under Section 130 it shall be open for the writ applicant to avail appropriate legal remedy available to him. However we are of the view that the goods and the vehicle should not be allowed to remain under detention for an indefinite period of time. Mr. Sheth the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant submitted that his client would deposit an amount of 89, 000/- towards the tax plus penalty plus interest and upon deposit of such amount the vehicle and the goods may be ordered to be released. The writ applicant is directed to deposit an amount of 89, 000/- with the respondent No.2 and upon deposit of such amount the respondent No.2 shall at the earliest release the vehicle and the goods.

Summary

Issues:
1. Detention of goods and vehicle under Section 129 of the GST Act.
2. Issuance of notice in Form GST MOV-10 under Section 130 of the Act.
3. Legal validity of the detention and confiscation notice.
4. Provisional release of goods and vehicle under Section 67(6) of the GST Act.
5. Deposit of amount towards tax, penalty, and interest for release of goods and vehicle.

Analysis:
1. The writ applicant, a proprietary concern, ordered yarn from a customer in U.P. and requested its sister concern in Maharashtra to deliver the goods. Due to an inadvertent error in mentioning the place of dispatch in the E-way bill, the vehicle carrying the goods was intercepted by the GST Checking Squad, resulting in a detention order dated 28.11.2020 under Section 129 of the GST Act.

2. The writ applicant sought provisional release of the goods and vehicle under Section 67(6) of the Act, but no decision was made on the application. Instead, a confiscation notice in Form GST MOV-10 was issued on the same day as the detention. Dissatisfied with the confiscation notice, the writ applicant filed a writ application challenging its legality and validity.

3. During the hearing, the court considered the arguments presented by both parties. The counsel for the writ applicant contended that an amount of ?89,000 towards tax, penalty, and interest would be deposited for the release of the goods and vehicle. On the other hand, the learned AGP representing the State-respondents agreed that upon depositing the said amount, there should be no difficulty in releasing the goods and vehicle.

4. The court, refraining from delving into the merits of the matter, directed the writ applicant to deposit ?89,000 with the respondent No.2. Upon such deposit, the respondent No.2 was instructed to release the vehicle and goods promptly. The court emphasized that this directive did not involve a detailed examination of the case's substance, focusing solely on the release of the detained items upon the specified deposit.