Raj Chamunda Roadlines vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner had availed the benefits of the interim orders passed by a co-ordinate bench, leading to the release of the goods and vehicle. Subsequently, a final order in Form GST-MOV-11 had been passed. In light of this development, the Court decided to relegate the writ-applicant to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, against the final order. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's challenge to the confiscation notice and order, as the primary relief sought in the writ-application was rendered moot by the passing of the final order and the availability of an appellate mechanism. The writ-application was disposed of with this direction.

Facts

The petitioner, Raj Chamunda Roadlines, filed a writ-application challenging a notice for confiscation of goods and conveyance and the subsequent order of confiscation passed by Respondent No. 2 under Section 130 of the GST Act. The goods and vehicle were detained for verification. Initially, Form GST-MOV-04 indicated no discrepancy in the goods. However, the respondents proceeded under Section 130 based on the dealer's alleged involvement in bogus billing or false ITC claims for August and September 2019. The petitioner argued that confiscation was impermissible without any discrepancy in the goods or documents. The High Court, in an interim order, directed the release of the conveyance upon payment of Rs. 1,85,248/, which was more than the fine in lieu of confiscation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the confiscation of goods and conveyance under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is permissible in the absence of any discrepancy found during the physical verification of the goods and documents. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the respondents acted illegally and in violation of natural justice by proceeding with confiscation under Section 130 of the CGST Act. They argued that since no discrepancy was found in the physical verification of the goods and the accompanying documents (as indicated in Form GST-MOV-04), the confiscation was unwarranted. The petitioner relied on the initial findings of no discrepancy to support their claim that the subsequent action under Section 130 was unjustified. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue or state in response to the petitioner's contentions regarding the lack of discrepancy. However, their action of issuing the notice and order of confiscation implies a belief that grounds for such action existed, likely based on the dealer's record check indicating bogus billing or false ITC claims.