2021 (3) TMI 1156 - HC - GST

Detention of goods - the person incharge of the conveyance, carrying the consignment of goods, was carrying with him the documents and invoice as described under rule 138(A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, or not - HELD THAT - Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, we are informed that the final order of confiscation in Form MOV-11 has been passed by the concerned authority. However, the learned counsel appearing for the writ-applicants is not aware of the same - Be that as it may, nothing further is required to be adjudicated in the present writ-application as the writ-application came to be virtually allowed by way of the aforesaid interim order. If the final order of confiscation has been passed, then it shall be open for the writ-applicants to challenge the same by preferring an appeal under Section107 of the Act. Application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Detention order and confiscation notice challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Compliance with section 68 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).
3. Grounds for detention of goods under section 129 of the CGST Act.
4. Valuation report and basis for confiscation of goods.
5. Interim relief granted for release of truck and goods.
6. Final order of confiscation passed by the concerned authority.
7. Right to challenge final order through appeal under Section 107 of the Act.

Analysis:

1. The writ-application challenged a detention order and confiscation notice dated 31.8.2019 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners sought relief through a writ of certiorari or mandamus to quash the orders and direct the release of the truck and goods without payment of tax, penalty, or security.

2. The court noted compliance with section 68 of the CGST Act, emphasizing the importance of carrying necessary documents and invoices as per rule 138(A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. It was argued that undervaluation of an invoice should not be a ground for detention if all required documents are furnished.

3. The grounds for detention of goods under section 129 of the CGST Act were discussed. The court highlighted that the section does not allow detention on grounds other than those specified. It was argued that undervaluation alone should not warrant detention if all statutory requirements are met.

4. The valuation report prepared by a government registered valuer was examined to determine the basis for confiscation of goods. The court considered the submissions and valuation report, expressing doubts about the valuation process and lack of confidence in the report.

5. An interim relief was granted for the release of the truck and goods, subject to the petitioners filing an undertaking to pay the liability if they fail in the case. This interim order was issued pending further hearing and was intended to provide immediate relief to the writ-applicants.

6. The final order of confiscation in Form MOV-11 was reported to have been passed by the concerned authority during the hearing. The court acknowledged this development but stated that since the interim order had practically allowed the writ-application, there was no further adjudication required.

7. The judgment concluded by informing the writ-applicants of their right to challenge the final order of confiscation through an appeal under Section 107 of the Act. It was clarified that the authority should proceed based on the undertaking filed by the writ-applicants, subject to any orders from the appellate authority.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the court and the outcomes of the legal proceedings concerning the detention and confiscation of goods under the CGST Act.