2020 (10) TMI 104 - HC - GST

Validity of service of notice - Release of confiscated goods alongwith truck - service of notice issued in the Form GST MOV-10 calling upon the writ applicant to show-cause as to why the goods along with the vehicle seized under Section 129 of the Act should not be confiscated under Section 130 of the Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - We need not delve much into the facts of this case as we are of the view that the final order of confiscation in Form GST MOV-11 is yet to be passed. We expect the writ applicant to appear before the authority and make good his case that the goods and the vehicle is not liable to be confiscated under Section 130 of the Act. Ultimately, if the show-cause notice in the Form GST MOV-10 is discharged, then that would be the end of the matter. However, in the event if final order of confiscation in the Form GST MOV-11 is passed, then the writ applicant will have the remedy of filing a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Act. As on date, we are considering a limited question whether the goods and the conveyance should be ordered to be released subject to certain terms and conditions pending the confiscation proceedings. We are inclined to order release of the goods and the vehicle on the condition that the writ applicant shall deposit the amount of ₹ 06,64,000/- within a period of one week from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order with the concerned authority and shall also furnish Bank Guarantee of the amount of ₹ 18,44,634/-. If these two conditions are fulfilled, then the authority concerned shall immediately release the goods and the vehicle - Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to confiscation notice under Section 130 of the Act.
2. Relief sought for release of goods and vehicle pending confiscation proceedings.
3. Conditions for release of goods and vehicle.

Analysis:
1. The writ applicant challenged a confiscation notice dated 28th August, 2020 issued under Section 130 of the Act, calling for a show-cause regarding the seized goods and vehicle. The High Court noted that the final order of confiscation was pending, and advised the writ applicant to present their case before the authority to avoid confiscation. If the show-cause notice is discharged, the matter would conclude; otherwise, the applicant could appeal under Section 107 of the Act after the final confiscation order.

2. The applicant expressed readiness to deposit ?6,64,000 towards tax and penalty, along with a Bank Guarantee of ?18,44,634 (50% of the fine amount) to prevent the confiscation of goods. Considering this, the Court ordered the release of goods and the vehicle on the condition that the specified amounts are deposited within a week, ensuring compliance with the terms set forth.

3. The Court clarified that its decision was solely based on the release of goods and the vehicle pending further confiscation proceedings, without delving into the merits of the case. The confiscation proceedings would continue as per the law, and the concerned authority would decide on the matter independently. Consequently, the writ application was disposed of, with the specified conditions for release being the primary focus of the judgment.