2021 (1) TMI 1014 - HC - GST

Release of goods alongwith conveyance - Section 130 of CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - It appears from the materials on record that the matter is at the stage of MOV-GST 10 issued under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Thus, the writ applicant has been issued with the showcause notice under Section 130 of the Act, 2017 calling upon him to show cause as to why the goods and conveyance should not be confiscated for the contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules as alleged in MOV 10. It is expected that the writ applicant to file his reply to the showcause notice and appear before the authority in the confiscation proceedings. However, we direct the authority concerned to immediately look into the application filed by the writ application under Section 67(6) of the Act for the provisional release of the goods and the conveyance and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of this order is presented before the authority. The confiscation proceedings also should be concluded with an appropriate order latest by 28.02.2021 . The writ applicant shall be given an adequate opportunity of hearing in the confiscation proceedings - Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to MOV-GST 10 Notice
2. Provisional release of goods and conveyance under Section 67(6) of the Act
3. Consideration of application by respondent authorities
4. Nature of goods being perishable

Analysis:

1. The writ applicant sought relief against the MOV-GST 10 Notice issued by respondent No.2 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The notice was issued under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, calling for a show cause on the possible confiscation of goods and conveyance for alleged contravention of Act provisions and Rules. The court heard both parties but refrained from intervening at that point, directing the writ applicant to respond to the show cause notice and participate in confiscation proceedings.

2. The court directed the concerned authority to promptly review the writ applicant's application for provisional release of goods and conveyance under Section 67(6) of the Act. Emphasizing the perishable nature of the goods, specifically cumin seeds, the authority was instructed to make a decision within a week from the date of the court order. The AGP highlighted an earlier application by the writ applicant for release, which was considered to fall under Section 67(6) despite its wording.

3. The judgment set a deadline for the conclusion of confiscation proceedings, requiring an appropriate order by a specified date. The writ applicant was guaranteed a fair hearing during these proceedings, ensuring due process. The court clarified that its decision to dispose of the writ application did not imply any opinion on the alleged contravention by the writ applicant.

4. The court's decision focused on procedural aspects, urging compliance with statutory requirements while acknowledging the urgency due to the perishable nature of the goods involved. The judgment balanced the interests of the parties by providing an opportunity for the writ applicant to present their case adequately within the legal framework.