Karan Toshniwal S/O Sushil Toshniwal vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the case, disposing of the writ application on a procedural ground. It noted that the goods were seized under Section 67 of the CGST Act and that a notice under Section 130 for confiscation was pending. The Court highlighted Section 67(6) of the CGST Act, which empowers the competent authority to order provisional release of seized goods upon execution of a bond, furnishing of security, or payment of applicable tax, interest, and penalty, even pending confiscation proceedings. The Court suggested that the applicants should prefer an application under Section 67(6) for provisional release. The Court directed that if the applicants file such an application, the competent authority shall consider and pass an appropriate order within fifteen days of receipt. If aggrieved by the order on provisional release, the applicants can appeal under Section 107. The Court explicitly stated it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts

The writ applicants, Karan Toshniwal and others, approached the Gujarat High Court challenging a press note and a summon related to alleged GST evasion. Their goods were seized under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. They received a notice under Section 130 of the Act regarding confiscation of these goods, which was pending adjudication. The applicants sought the release of the seized goods, arguing that their tax, penalty, and fine liability had been determined. They also prayed for a stay on further proceedings and no coercive action against them.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should quash the press note dated 08.02.2020 and the summon at Annexure A1, and direct the respondents not to take action under Section 69 read with Section 132 without following due procedure of assessment and adjudication as contemplated under Section 61, Section 73, or Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the action taken was without following the due procedure of assessment and adjudication. They sought to quash the press note and summon and prevent coercive action. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue or state respondents regarding the initial challenge to the press note and summon. However, the Court's direction implicitly acknowledges the revenue's right to proceed under the Act.