M/S Sawariya Traders Through Proprietor Mr. Makhan Mohan Singh Rajput vs. State Of Gujarat Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance

Held

The Court did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, it addressed the procedural issue of entertaining a writ petition when a statutory appeal is available. The Court noted that the petitioner had lost the limitation period for filing an appeal. However, considering the goods were of a perishable nature and had been detained since September 2019, and that the auction offset price exceeded the estimated liability, the Court inclined to pass an order for the release of goods and the vehicle. The petitioner was directed to deposit 50% of the estimated liability (Rs. 36 Lac) with the respondent, and the balance 50% by way of a bank guarantee from a nationalized bank within two weeks. The Court clarified that this order was passed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and that it would be open for the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, if they intended to challenge the confiscation order.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sawariya Traders, engaged in the business of arecanut, dispatched a consignment from Nagpur to Jamnagar. The vehicle carrying the goods, owned by petitioner No. 2, was intercepted by Respondent No. 3 on September 8, 2019. At the time of inspection, the authorities noted that the driver did not possess any documents for the goods in transit, including a tax bill and e-way bill, and the tax invoice number was not printed. Consequently, the goods and the vehicle were detained under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Subsequently, an order of confiscation (MOV-11) was passed, followed by a public notice for auctioning the goods and vehicle with an offset price of Rs. 46 Lac. The writ application was filed on the day the bids were to be opened.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging a confiscation order when a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 is available? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that they have lost the limitation period for filing a statutory appeal and therefore prayed for the writ application to be heard on merits and the confiscation order to be quashed. Revenue's argument: The State respondents argued that the writ application should not be entertained as the petitioners approached the court at the last minute, with bids for auction to be finalized on the same day. They also noted that the total liability of the petitioners was around Rs. 36 Lac, while the auction offset price was Rs. 46 Lac.