2021 (3) TMI 376 - HC - GST

Release of seized conveyance alongwith the goods - section 130 of CGST Act - HELD THAT - By way of an ad-interim relief, the conveyance has already been ordered to be released on paying the amount of ₹ 58,576/- towards fine in lieu of confiscation of the conveyance, the writ applicant should prefer an appeal against such order of confiscation under Section 107 of the Act in accordance with law. The writ applicant is permitted to prefer an appropriate appeal within four weeks from today. If any appeal is preferred, the appellate authority shall adjudicate the same on its own merits in accordance with law - application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Relief sought for the release of a truck.
2. Quashing of notice for confiscation of conveyance.
3. Quashing of confiscation order.
4. Direction for release of another truck.
5. Grant of ex parte ad interim relief.
6. Challenge against the final order of conveyance.
7. Direction to prefer an appeal against the order of confiscation.
8. Entitlement to seek refund if successful in appeal.

Issue 1 - Relief sought for the release of a truck:
The writ applicant sought a writ of mandamus or a writ in nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to release a specific truck. The court noted a previous order allowing the release of the truck upon payment of a stipulated amount as fine in lieu of confiscation. The court advised the applicant to prefer an appeal against the order of confiscation under Section 107 of the Act.

Issue 2 - Quashing of notice for confiscation of conveyance:
The applicant requested the court to quash the notice for confiscation of the conveyance. The court observed that the impugned order of confiscation was challenged on the grounds that it was a non-speaking order with deficiencies in recording reasons. The court directed the release of the truck subject to payment of the fine, pending the final outcome of the petition.

Issue 3 - Quashing of confiscation order:
The applicant sought the quashing of the confiscation order. The court acknowledged the challenge against the final order of conveyance under Section 130 of the Act. The court advised the applicant to file an appeal against the order of confiscation within four weeks, allowing the appellate authority to adjudicate the matter on its merits.

Issue 4 - Direction for release of another truck:
The applicant also requested the court to direct the release of another truck. The court disposed of the writ application, permitting the applicant to file an appeal within the specified timeline and stating that the appellate authority would decide the matter independently.

Issue 5 - Grant of ex parte ad interim relief:
The applicant sought ex parte ad interim relief, which was not specifically addressed in the judgment but was likely included in the broader relief sought for the release of the trucks and quashing of the confiscation orders.

Issue 6 - Challenge against the final order of conveyance:
The final order of conveyance under Section 130 of the Act was challenged in the writ application. The court advised the applicant to appeal against this order within the stipulated time frame, emphasizing that the appellate authority would assess the appeal independently.

Issue 7 - Direction to prefer an appeal against the order of confiscation:
The court directed the applicant to prefer an appeal against the order of confiscation within four weeks, ensuring that the appellate authority would review the appeal on its own merits in accordance with the law.

Issue 8 - Entitlement to seek refund if successful in appeal:
The judgment mentioned that if the applicant succeeded in the appeal against the order of confiscation, they would be entitled to seek a refund of the amount deposited towards the fine in lieu of confiscation. The court expressed no opinion on the merits of the case but provided a pathway for potential refund in case of a successful appeal.