Ravi Kumar, Proprietor Of M/S Kumar Enterprises vs. State Of Gujarat Through Principal Secretary

Facts

The petitioner, Ravi Kumar, proprietor of M/s Kumar Enterprises, filed a writ application challenging an Order of Detention under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act dated 30.09.2020, a Show Cause Notice under Section 130 of the CGST Act dated 30.09.2020, and an Order of Confiscation under Section 130 of the CGST Act dated 10.10.2020, all issued by Respondent No. 2. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and direct the release of goods worth Rs. 34,14,600/- without payment of tax and penalty. The goods in question were identified as 'cummin seeds', which are perishable. The petitioner argued that the actions taken by the respondents were arbitrary. The Court was informed that the petitioner had already filed an appeal under Section 107 of the Act challenging the order of confiscation.

Held

The High Court held that since an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act had already been filed and was pending before the appellate authority, there was no good or valid reason to entertain the writ application. The Court stated that the appellate authority, while deciding the appeal, could examine the legality and validity of the actions taken by the revenue authorities. The Court disposed of the writ application without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. It directed the Appellate Authority to immediately take up the appeal for hearing and decide it in accordance with the law. The Court also kept it open for the writ applicant to file an appropriate application under Section 67(6) of the Act for the provisional release of the goods, with a direction for such application to be heard and decided within two days of filing. The Court emphasized that the perishable nature of the goods ('cummin seeds') should be considered, and the appeal should be decided by 31.01.2021 after giving the writ applicant an opportunity of hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ application challenging orders under Sections 129(1) and 130 of the CGST Act when an appeal under Section 107 of the Act has already been filed and is pending before the appellate authority? The petitioner argued that the writ application was filed to address the arbitrary action taken by the respondents. The petitioner sought to quash the detention order, show cause notice, and confiscation order, and sought the release of goods worth Rs. 34,14,600/- without tax and penalty, highlighting the perishable nature of the goods. The petitioner relied on the principle that a writ petition can be entertained in cases of arbitrary action. The respondent (State of Gujarat) did not present any arguments in the judgment.