Guru Steel, Proprietory Firm Through Proprietor Vinitkumar Mansukhlal Jani vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court held that while the petitioner argued the order was based on presumptions and the driver's statement, this submission could not be accepted. The Court noted that the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice and afforded an opportunity of hearing, but failed to respond. Since a final order had been passed under Section 130 of the CGST Act, the Court found that the proper course for the petitioner was to file an appeal as provided under the statute. As an alternative and equally efficacious remedy was available to the petitioner, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The Court explicitly clarified that it had not gone into the merits of the case. The petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Guru Steel, filed a Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the detention of its conveyance and goods under Section 129 and the subsequent notice of confiscation under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner later amended the petition to specifically challenge the order of confiscation of goods and conveyance and demand of tax, fine, and penalty dated August 4, 2021, passed under Section 130 of the CGST Act. The respondent authority had passed this order determining taxes, penalty, and fine, and confiscating the goods and conveyance. The petitioner argued that the order was based on presumptions and the driver's statement.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of detention of conveyance and goods under Section 129 and the notice of confiscation under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017, read with relevant provisions of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is illegal, arbitrary, unlawful, and contrary to the provision of the law? 2. Whether the order of confiscation of goods and conveyance and demand of tax, fine, and penalty dated August 4, 2021, issued under Section 130 of the CGST Act, is illegal, arbitrary, unlawful, and contrary to the provision of the law? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order passed by the respondent authority was based on presumptions and surmises, and merely relying on the statement of the driver. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing by issuing a show-cause notice, but the petitioner did not respond. The respondent authority, therefore, passed the final order under Section 130 of the CGST Act.