M/S. Lakhmichand Ispat vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes)

Held

The Court held that it was proper to direct the petitioner to submit their explanation within three days of receiving a copy of the order. The 1st respondent was directed to consider this explanation/objections, provide an opportunity for a personal hearing to the petitioner, and then pass appropriate orders on merits in accordance with the governing law within one week of the explanation's submission. The Court did not decide on the merits of the confiscation itself but ensured procedural fairness. The ratio decidendi is that a show cause notice for confiscation necessitates an opportunity for the affected party to be heard and present their explanation before a final decision is made.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a Form GST MOV-10 notice dated March 3, 2023. This notice instructed the petitioner to appear and show cause why the goods and conveyance in question should not be confiscated. The petitioner is the owner of the goods and conveyance. The notice was issued by the 1st respondent, an authority under the GST regime. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history is limited to the issuance of the Form GST MOV-10 notice and the subsequent filing of the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to submit an explanation and be heard before any final order is passed regarding the confiscation of goods and conveyance, as per the principles of natural justice and governing law? The petitioner argued that they should be given a chance to explain their position and that the notice itself was a precursor to potential confiscation, necessitating a proper hearing. The revenue or State did not record any specific arguments in the judgment, but the context implies they were seeking confiscation based on the notice issued.