Mohd. Sahil Jakir vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court noted that an ad-interim order had been passed on September 19, 2019, directing the release of the truck and goods upon the filing of an undertaking by the writ applicants to pay the amount of liability if they ultimately failed in the case. The Court observed that the writ application was virtually allowed by this interim order. The Court further noted that if a final order of confiscation had been passed, it would be open for the writ applicants to challenge it by preferring an appeal under Section 107 of the Act. The authority concerned was directed to proceed further in terms of the undertaking, subject to any order passed by the appellate authority. The Court did not adjudicate further on the merits of the case, considering the interim order and the availability of an appellate remedy.

Facts

The writ applicants, Mohd. Sahil Jakir and others, challenged a detention order dated August 31, 2019, in Form GST MOV-6 and a confiscation notice dated August 31, 2019, in Form GST MOV-10, passed by the revenue authorities. They sought the quashing of these orders and the release of truck no. HR-73-7266 along with its goods without any payment of tax, penalty, security, or bond. A coordinate bench of the High Court, on September 19, 2019, granted ad-interim relief, directing the release of the truck and goods upon the petitioners filing an undertaking to pay the liability if they ultimately failed in the case. The court noted that a final order of confiscation in Form MOV-11 had been passed, but the writ applicants' counsel was unaware of it.

Key Issues

1. Whether the detention of goods under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) is permissible on grounds other than those explicitly stated therein, specifically when the person in charge of the conveyance was carrying all necessary documents as required under Section 68 of the CGST Act read with Rule 138(A) of the CGST Rules, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that Section 129 of the CGST Act does not contemplate detention of goods on grounds other than those specified. They contended that undervaluation of an invoice cannot be a ground for detention if all necessary documents as required under Section 68 read with Rule 138(A) have been furnished. They also referred to a valuation report prepared by a Government registered valuer for the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax, which formed the basis for the respondents' action. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue or State.