9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 333 - HC - GSTConfiscation of goods - appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act filed or not - status of such appeal, if any filed - any application under Section 67(6) of the Act for the provisional release of the goods, filed or not, pending the appeal - deposit of 10% of the total amount sought to be recovered under the Act, made or not - HELD THAT - Today, when the matter is taken up for further hearing, Mr. Chintan Dave the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State respondents makes a statement that the writ applicants have preferred two appeals against the final order of confiscation passed in the FORM GST MOV-11. One Appeal is with respect to the goods in question and the other Appeal is with respect to the Vehicle in question. Matters remanded with a direction to the Appellate Authority to complete the hearing of both the appeals and pass the final order by JANUARY 31, 2021. We expect the Appellate Authority while deciding the Appeals to keep in mind the principles of law as explained by this Court in the case of Synergy Fertichem (P) Limited v. State of Gujarat 2019 (12) TMI 1213 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT as well as the judgment rendered in the case of Insha Trading Co. v. State of Gujarat and Others 2019 (10) TMI 938 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT . Application disposed off.
Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act filed by the writ-applicant against the final order of confiscation. 2. Status of any appeal already preferred. 3. Application under Section 67(6) of the Act for provisional release of goods. 4. Deposit of 10% of the total amount sought to be recovered under the Act. Analysis: 1. The Court initially directed the Assistant Government Pleader to provide information on various questions related to the appeals filed by the writ-applicant against the final order of confiscation. These questions included whether any appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act had been filed, the status of such appeal, and whether any application for provisional release of goods had been made. 2. In the subsequent hearing, it was revealed that the writ applicants had indeed filed two appeals against the final order of confiscation, one concerning the goods and the other concerning the vehicle in question. The Counsel for the writ applicants informed the Court that arguments had been completed before the Appellate Authority in both appeals, with the next hearing scheduled for a specific date. The Government Pleader assured the Court of no further delays in the hearing of the appeals, committing to making submissions before the Appellate Authority on the specified date. 3. The Court disposed of the matters with a directive to the Appellate Authority to conclude the hearing of both appeals and issue a final order by a specified date. The Court emphasized that the Appellate Authority should consider the legal principles established in previous cases while deciding the appeals. The Court referred to specific judgments to guide the Appellate Authority in its decision-making process. 4. Finally, the Court concluded by disposing of both the Writ Applications and the Civil Application, granting the writ applicants the option to seek further legal remedies if they were dissatisfied with the Appellate Authority's decision. The Court's decision was based on the completion of arguments before the Appellate Authority and the assurance from the Government Pleader regarding the timely progress of the appeals. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the procedural steps taken by the Court, the status of the appeals filed by the writ applicants, and the directives provided to the Appellate Authority for the timely resolution of the appeals while considering relevant legal precedents.
|
