Devrajbhai Vikrambhai Sambad vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court held that the conveyance in question should be released forthwith upon the petitioner depositing the amount determined by the respondents in lieu of confiscation. This deposit will be treated as a provisional deposit, subject to the final outcome of the proceedings under Section 130 of the CGST Act. The respondent authorities were directed to afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing a final order under Section 130. The Court also noted that if an adverse order is passed against the petitioner in the Section 130 proceedings, it would be open for the petitioner to challenge that order. The principle established is that a conveyance can be released upon deposit of the computed fine, pending final adjudication, provided a hearing is granted.

Facts

The petitioner, Devrajbhai Vikrambhai Sambad, filed a Special Civil Application before the Gujarat High Court challenging an action by the State of Gujarat. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay the amount computed by the respondents as fine in lieu of confiscation of a conveyance, as per Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner requested the release of the conveyance upon making this deposit, pending the final order from the authorities. The revenue, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader, was also heard.

Key Issues

1. Whether the conveyance in question should be released upon the petitioner depositing the amount determined by the respondents in lieu of confiscation, subject to the final order under Section 130 of the CGST Act? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that they are willing to pay the computed amount as fine in lieu of confiscation. They urged for the release of the conveyance upon making this deposit, contingent on the final order to be passed by the respondents under Section 130 of the CGST Act after affording an opportunity of hearing. Revenue's Argument: The judgment records that the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents was heard, but does not detail specific arguments made by the revenue.