2021 (3) TMI 372 - HC - GST

Release of detained goods - goods in question were not accompanied by an invoice or e way bill during the course of transport - HELD THAT - The matter is at the stage of MOV 10 i.e. the show cause notice as to why the goods should not be confiscated under Section 130 of the GST Act, 2017. As the goods have already been released pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court and the matter is at the stage of MOV 10, then we would not like to go into this matter any further. It is clarified that if, ultimately, any final order of confiscation is passed in Form GST MOV 11 under Section 130 of the Act, then it shall be open for the writ applicant to challenge such order by way of an appeal under Section 107 of the Act. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Writ application under Article 226 for quashing detention order and confiscation notice.
2. Release of vehicle and goods pending hearing.
3. Ad interim relief request.
4. Challenge to confiscation order under Section 130 of GST Act.

Analysis:

1. The writ applicant sought relief through a writ of certiorari to quash the detention order and confiscation notice. The applicant also requested the release of the vehicle and goods along with interim relief. The court noted the absence of invoice or e-way bill for goods valued under ?50,000, emphasizing the determination of value for second-hand goods under Rule 32 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. Despite the petitioner's compliance with tax and penalty requirements, proceedings under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 were initiated by the respondents.

2. A Coordinate Bench order acknowledged the petitioner's submissions regarding the nature and value of the goods, directing the release of the vehicle and goods subject to certain conditions. The court considered the petitioner's explanation, highlighting the need for an undertaking to deposit any balance amount if the petitioner does not succeed in the proceedings, with the right to challenge any adverse order passed.

3. During the hearing, the court listened to arguments from both parties, with Mr. Uchit Sheth representing the writ applicant and Mr. Utkarsh Sharma appearing for the respondents. The court noted that the matter was at the stage of MOV 10 concerning the show cause notice for potential confiscation under Section 130 of the GST Act, 2017. Given the interim release of goods and the stage of proceedings, the court decided not to delve further into the matter, allowing the writ applicant to challenge any final confiscation order through an appeal under Section 107 of the Act.

4. The judgment concluded by disposing of the writ application, clarifying that no opinion on the case's merits was expressed. The court highlighted the option for the writ applicant to appeal any final confiscation order under Section 130 of the GST Act, emphasizing the right to challenge such orders through the statutory appeal process provided by law.