Sakul Nazar Mohmd vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The writ applicant, Sakul Nazar Mohmd, filed a writ application challenging a detention order dated 31.8.2019 in Form GST MOV-6 and a confiscation notice dated 31.8.2019 in Form GST MOV-10. The applicant sought the quashing of these orders and the release of truck no. RJ-14-GK-0683 along with its goods without payment of tax, penalty, security, or bond. A coordinate bench had previously granted interim relief, directing the release of the truck and goods upon the petitioner filing an undertaking to pay the liability if they ultimately failed. During the pendency of the writ application, a final order of confiscation in Form GST MOV-11 was passed.

Held

The Court noted that a final order of confiscation in Form GST MOV-11 had been passed during the pendency of the writ application. Consequently, the Court relegated the writ applicant to avail the statutory remedy of filing an appeal against the final order of confiscation under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Court did not decide on the merits of the initial detention or confiscation notices or the legality of detention based on alleged undervaluation. The primary decision was to direct the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy available under the Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether undervaluation of an invoice can be a ground for detention of goods under Section 129 of the CGST Act when all necessary documents as required under Section 68 read with Rule 138(A) have been furnished? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the detention of goods was illegal as the person in charge of the conveyance was carrying all the required documents and invoices as per Rule 138(A) of the CGST Rules. They argued that Section 129 of the CGST Act does not permit detention on grounds other than those explicitly stated therein, and undervaluation of an invoice cannot be such a ground. The petitioner also referred to a valuation report prepared by a government-registered valuer to justify the market value of the goods. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state.