M/S Doaba Steel Rolling Mills PVT LTD vs. State Of Punjab And Another

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner had complied with the interim directions by making the necessary payment and furnishing security, leading to the release of the vehicle and goods. Consequently, the exigency of the situation that necessitated the writ petition had been addressed. The Court disposed of the writ petition, opining that it was open to the petitioner to pursue their remedies in accordance with the law, specifically referencing the case of State of Punjab Vs. M/s Shiva Enterprises and others, 2023 (96) GST 120. The Court did not delve into the merits of the tax evasion allegations or the validity of the confiscation order, as the immediate prayer for release of goods and conveyance had been satisfied. The primary issue of immediate release was rendered moot by compliance with prior directions and subsequent release.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Doaba Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking the release of goods and conveyance. The goods, TMT Bars, were invoiced to M/s Garg Iron Traders and M/s Goldrange Casting Pvt. Ltd. on 18.09.2023. An MOV-10 was issued for confiscation of the goods and conveyance. Previously, on 03.10.2023, this Court directed the petitioner to pay 25% of the imposed fine and penalty in cash and furnish a personal/surety bond for the remaining amount for the release of goods. The respondents' reply indicated that the description of goods in the purchase invoice differed from the loaded goods, suggesting an intention to evade tax. The petitioner had appeared before the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, and was informed that a speaking order under Section 130 of the CGST/PGST Act would be passed, with the option to appeal if aggrieved.

Key Issues

1. Whether the goods and conveyance, detained on the grounds of discrepancy in the description of goods and alleged intention to evade tax, should be released upon furnishing security, as per the petitioner's prayer under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the goods and conveyance should be released upon furnishing security, as per the interim directions previously issued by the Court. They stated that the necessary payment had been made and the vehicle and goods had been released. Revenue's contention: The State of Punjab, through the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, contended that the goods loaded (TMT Bars) had a different description than that in the purchase invoice, raising suspicion of tax evasion. They stated that a speaking order under Section 130 of the CGST/PGST Act would be passed, and the petitioner could avail the appellate remedy thereafter. The respondents relied on the fact that the transaction could not be treated as genuine due to the discrepancy.