M/S Kwality Makers Snacks PVT. LTD. vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Kwality Makers Snacks Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ application before the Gujarat High Court challenging a show-cause notice issued in FORM-GST MOV-10 under the CGST Act, 2017. The notice alleged contravention of the Act and Rules, proposing confiscation of goods and the conveyance. The State of Gujarat was the respondent. The Court noted that a final order of confiscation, if passed, would be appealable under Section 107 of the Act. The petitioner was also advised to apply for provisional release of goods and conveyance under Section 67(6) of the Act.

Held

The Court held that it was not inclined to interfere with the show-cause notice at this stage. The reasoning was that if a final order of confiscation were to be passed by the authority, such an order would be appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. This indicates the Court's preference for the petitioner to exhaust the statutory appellate mechanism after a final decision is rendered by the adjudicating authority. The Court also provided an alternative recourse, stating that it would be open for the petitioner to file an application for the provisional release of the goods and conveyance under Section 67(6) of the Act, pending the confiscation proceedings. The Court directed that if such an application were filed, the concerned authority should consider it expeditiously and decide it in accordance with law. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Court disposed of the matter with directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging a show-cause notice proposing confiscation of goods and conveyance, when a statutory remedy of appeal is available against a final order of confiscation under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued for the High Court's intervention at this stage, likely seeking to prevent the confiscation or to have the matter decided on merits. The revenue, represented by the State of Gujarat, implicitly contended that the writ petition was premature as a final order had not yet been passed, and the petitioner should exhaust the statutory remedies available. The Court's oral order indicates it considered the availability of an appeal under Section 107 as a reason not to interfere at the show-cause notice stage.