Sanjaybhai Laxmanbhai Gogara vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The High Court, while acknowledging the petitioner's arguments and the interim relief granted for the release of the conveyance upon payment of Rs. 1,17,832, ultimately decided not to adjudicate the merits of the confiscation order in the writ petition. The Court observed that a final order in Form GST-MOV-11 had been passed. Therefore, the Court relegated the writ-applicant to prefer an appeal against this final order under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court did not decide the legality of the confiscation itself but provided a procedural recourse. The issue of whether the confiscation was permissible in the absence of physical discrepancies was not definitively decided by the Court in this writ application.

Facts

The petitioner, Sanjaybhai Laxmanbhai Gogara, filed a writ-application challenging a notice for confiscation of goods and conveyance and a subsequent order of confiscation passed by Respondent No. 2 under Section 130 of the GST Act. The goods and conveyance 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 discrepancies in goods or documents. The High Court, in an interim order, directed the release of the conveyance upon payment of Rs. 1,17,832, 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, based solely on allegations of bogus billing or false ITC claims against the dealer? Petitioner's Argument: 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 during the physical verification of the goods, and the documents were in order, the confiscation of the vehicle and goods was not permissible. They relied on the findings in Form GST-MOV-04 which indicated no discrepancy. Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state respondents regarding the grounds for confiscation or their justification for proceeding under Section 130 despite the absence of physical discrepancies. The court's decision to relegate the petitioner to an appeal suggests that the revenue's position, as presented or understood by the court, was not definitively ruled upon in this writ proceeding.