M/S Sawariya Traders vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court did not definitively decide on the validity of the Form GST MOV-10 notice. Instead, it directed the writ-applicants to file an appropriate reply to the notice and make good their case that the notice deserves to be discharged. The Court also permitted the writ-applicants to seek provisional release of the goods and conveyance by filing an application under Section 67(6) of the Act. The authority concerned was directed to consider such an application immediately and pass an appropriate order within one week of its receipt. The Court also allowed the writ-applicants to rely on a recent pronouncement of the High Court in the case of Synergy Fertichem Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat. The challenge to the MOV-10 notice was not quashed but was to be addressed through a reply by the petitioner.

Facts

The writ-applicants, M/s Sawariya Traders (owner of goods - Arecanut) and the owner of the vehicle, have filed a writ petition challenging the detention and seizure of goods and the vehicle by GST authorities. The goods were in transit, and the vehicle was on a rental basis. The authorities seized them, alleging contravention of the Act and Rules. A show cause notice in Form GST MOV-10 was issued. The petitioner argued that the detention order under Section 129(1) was silent on discrepancies after physical verification, and the notice under Section 130 did not specify which of the five contingencies under Section 130(1) was infringed, nor was it issued to the proper person (driver). The goods and vehicle remain in the custody of GST Authorities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notice in Form GST MOV-10 (Notice for confiscation) is liable to be quashed, considering the alleged lack of specificity regarding the contravention of Section 130(1) of the CGST Act and the issuance of the notice to the driver instead of the proper person? (Question of law). Petitioner's arguments: The order of detention under Section 129(1) is silent regarding discrepancies after physical verification. The notice under Section 130, Form GST MOV-10, does not specify which of the five contingencies under Section 130(1) of the CGST Act has been infringed. Furthermore, the notice under Section 130, which contemplates action against the person contravening the provisions, was issued to the driver, who is not the proper person to respond to such a notice. Revenue's arguments: No specific arguments from the revenue are recorded in the judgment regarding the challenge to the MOV-10 notice.