2020 (2) TMI 433 - HC - GST

Confiscation of goods alongwith the conveyance - section 130 of CGST Act - HELD THAT - Form GST MOV-10 has been issued, calling upon the writ-applicant to show cause why the goods in question and the conveyance used to transfer the goods, should not be confiscated under the provisions of Section 130 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and why the penalty and fine shall not be recovered. As the matter is at the stage of show-cause notice, under Section 130 of the Act, 2017, the writ-applicant should appear before the authority and file an appropriate reply - So far as the release of the goods and the conveyance is concerned, it shall be open for the writ-applicant to prefer an application, under Section 67(6) of the Act, 2017, for provisional release.

Issues:
1. Writ-Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking relief against Notice for confection in form MOV-10 issued by respondent no.2.
2. Release of seized goods along with truck under Section 129(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
3. Direction to release seized goods along with truck pending admission, hearing, and final disposal of the petition.
4. Passing of any other and further orders deemed fit and proper.
5. Provision for the costs of the petition.

Analysis:
1. The writ-applicant sought relief against the Notice for confection in form MOV-10 issued by respondent no.2. The Court acknowledged the issuance of Form GST MOV-10, calling for a show cause regarding the potential confiscation of goods and conveyance under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The Court advised the writ-applicant to appear before the authority and submit a suitable reply at this show-cause notice stage.

2. The Court addressed the issue of releasing the seized goods and the conveyance. It allowed the writ-applicant to file an application for provisional release under Section 67(6) of the Act, 2017. The Court specified that if such an application is submitted, the concerned authority must make a decision within one week from the application's filing date, in compliance with the law.

3. Regarding the direction for the release of seized goods and the truck during the pendency of the petition, the Court did not provide a specific order in the oral judgment. However, it implied that the writ-applicant could seek provisional release under Section 67(6) of the Act, 2017, which suggests a possibility for temporary release pending the final disposal of the case.

4. The Court left the option open for passing any other and further orders deemed fit and proper in the case. This indicates that additional orders or directions may be issued as necessary during the proceedings, based on the evolving circumstances and legal requirements.

5. The Court allowed for the provision of costs related to the petition. This ensures that the expenses incurred during the legal process, including court fees and other relevant costs, can be addressed appropriately as part of the overall resolution of the case.

← Previous Next →