2021 (10) TMI 923 - HC - GST

Detention of goods alongwith conveyance - e-way bill could not be generated immediately - allegation also that the registration of the recipient was being shown as suspended and that the goods had been undervalued - Section 67(6) of the Central / Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Act - HELD THAT - The petitioner herein is the owner of the goods and it is his case that his vehicle and goods both have been seized by the GST Authorities and when the goods were being transported in the alleged contravention of the Act and the Rules, order is passed of detention under the GST MOV 10 and as the matter is at the stage of GST MOV 10, this Court would not like to enter into the merits of the matter. However, we have taken note of the serious concern raised before us by the petitioner of provisional release of the goods and vehicle prior to moving of such stage of MOV. Let a speaking order be passed by the authority / officer concerned in this regard on the issue of provisional release to enable the petitioner to take necessary legal course if in case there arises any need for challenge - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Detention and confiscation of goods due to non-availability of e-way bill, suspension of buyer's registration, and undervaluation.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a proprietorship firm, faced detention of goods by the authority due to the absence of an e-way bill during transportation. The transporter initiated the movement without waiting for the e-way bill, leading to interception by the authority. The petitioner's plea highlighted no discrepancy in the quantity loaded, but the goods were detained for lack of the e-way bill. Additionally, the authority alleged buyer's registration suspension and undervaluation of goods.

The petitioner sought provisional release of goods under Section 67(6) of the GST Acts and objected to the confiscation notice. Despite reminders and clarifications on the buyer's active registration, the authority did not release the goods. The petitioner approached the court seeking mandamus for provisional release and quashing of the confiscation notice.

During the hearing, the petitioner's advocate referred to a previous case and urged the court for immediate provisional release of the goods. The respondent's advocate assured addressing the grievance on the next scheduled date, emphasizing no interference by the court.

The court refrained from delving into the merits of the case but acknowledged the petitioner's concern for provisional release. It directed the authority to consider the application for release promptly, adhering to the provisions of Section 67(6) of the Act. The court instructed a speaking order on provisional release within two weeks before any confiscation order. The judgment aligned with a previous case's order, emphasizing timely consideration and compliance with legal guidelines.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the petition, permitting necessary actions for provisional release and subsequent legal recourse if required. The judgment underscored the importance of timely consideration by the authority and adherence to legal directives for resolving the matter effectively.