2021 (9) TMI 941 - HC - GST

Detention of goods alongwith the truck - it is claimed that without any reason or allegation, the goods were detained - Section 129 of the Central/Gujarat Goods Services Tax Act 2017 - HELD THAT - Issue Notice returnable on 24.9.2021 - Let there be no further coercive actions.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to detention order under Section 129 of the Central/Gujarat Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017; Prayers for writs of certiorari, mandamus, and release of goods; Allegations of arbitrary detention without jurisdiction; Interpretation of relevant provisions and rules; Precedents cited in support of petitioner's case.

Analysis:

The judgment involves a challenge to an order of detention dated 6.9.2021 under Section 129 of the Central/Gujarat Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner sought writs of certiorari and mandamus to quash the detention order and confiscation notice, respectively. The petitioner also requested the release of goods and truck pending further proceedings. The Form GST MOV 6 mentioned a tender document for verification at the time of detention, while Form GST MOV 10 indicated a determination of liability due to wrong input tax credit. The petitioner, Minesh Enterprise, had not received a notice regarding tax evasion. A reply to the show-cause notice was submitted.

During the hearing, the petitioner's advocate argued that no statutory violations were found during the interception and examination of goods. It was contended that the detaining officer acted beyond authority by detaining the vehicle without involving the assessing officer. Citing Section 68 of the Act and Rule 138 of the Central GST Rules, the advocate emphasized the lack of justification for the detention. Precedents, including the case of Shri Anant Jignesh Shah and Insha Trading Company, were cited to support the petitioner's position. The Court issued a notice returnable on 24.9.2021 and restrained further coercive actions. The officer was permitted to issue notices to alleged violators but required court permission for passing orders without coercive action. Direct service of notices was allowed.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the legality of the detention order under the GST Act, focusing on procedural irregularities and lack of statutory basis for detention. The petitioner's arguments centered on the absence of violations during interception and the detaining officer's exceeding of authority. Precedents were cited to support the petitioner's contentions. The Court's decision to issue notice and restrict coercive actions reflects a cautious approach pending further proceedings.