Rajesh Kiran D vs. Joint Commissioner Of State Tax Division - 8

Held

The Court observed that the matter was at the stage of Form GST MOV-10, where the writ applicant had been called upon to show cause why the goods and vehicle should not be confiscated under Section 130 of the Act. The Court was not inclined to grant any relief at that point as the confiscation proceedings were pending. The Court expected the writ applicant to participate in these proceedings and argue that no case for confiscation was made out. The Court also noted that if the petitioner sought provisional release of the goods and vehicle, it was open to them to file an application before the concerned authority under Section 67(6) of the Act, and that such an application should be looked into at the earliest and decided in accordance with law. The Court clarified that it had not gone into the merits of the matter.

Facts

The petitioner, engaged in the business of Areca Nuts, generated three invoices for the supply of goods to a party in Delhi. The goods were loaded into a vehicle from Kasaragod, and e-way bills were generated. The vehicle was intercepted, and the goods and truck were seized under Section 129 of the GST Act, 2017. The discrepancies noted included a mismatch in the delivery destination, the nature of the supplier's business premises, missing GSTIN on invoices, and an excess quantity of Areca Nuts found during physical verification for which no documents were tendered. Further investigations revealed inconsistencies in the supplier's GST filings, HSN codes, and outward supplies compared to their stated business activities. The matter had reached the stage of show-cause notice under Section 130 for confiscation of goods and vehicle.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order under Section 129 and notice under Section 130 are illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and unconstitutional, warranting quashing and setting aside, and consequently, release of the seized goods and vehicle? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought to quash the orders and notices, praying for the release of goods and the vehicle. The writ application was filed seeking these reliefs, including interim directions for release and stay of proceedings. Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue. However, the revenue authorities passed the impugned order under Section 129 and issued the notice under Section 130, leading to the seizure of goods and the vehicle based on the identified discrepancies.