Kush Traders Thru. Proprietor Patel Pravinkumar Maganlal vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The petitioner, Kush Traders, filed a writ application challenging an order of detention passed by Respondent No. 2 under Section 129(1) of the GST Act concerning goods and a conveyance (Truck No. GJ-02-XX-6198) detained on April 18, 2019. A subsequent notice for confiscation of goods or conveyance and levy of penalty under Section 130 of the GST Act was also challenged. The petitioner argued that no e-way bill was required for the goods (jeera and souff) based on Notification No. 27/2017-Central Tax dated August 30, 2017, which exempted certain goods from e-way bill generation. The High Court had previously issued orders on April 26, 2019, and May 9, 2019, concerning the matter.

Held

The Court noted that the goods and conveyance had been ordered to be released by an interim order dated May 9, 2019, subject to the petitioner paying the computed tax and penalty and filing an undertaking. The matter was at the stage of MOV-10 proceedings. The Court directed the writ-applicant to participate in the ongoing confiscation proceedings initiated by the authority. The petitioner was advised to file a reply and present their case to get the notice discharged. The Court clarified that if a final order of confiscation was passed under Section 130, the petitioner would have the remedy to file an appeal under Section 107. The writ-application was disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving the authority to pass an order in accordance with law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the detention of goods and conveyance under Section 129(1) of the GST Act and the subsequent notice for confiscation under Section 130 of the GST Act were illegal and violative of natural justice, given the petitioner's contention that no e-way bill was required for the transported goods (jeera and souff) as per Notification No. 27/2017-Central Tax. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that Notification No. 27/2017-Central Tax, specifically item No. 62 of its annexure, exempted fennel and cumin from the requirement of an e-way bill. Therefore, the detention and subsequent notice for confiscation on the ground of non-generation of an e-way bill were illegal and contrary to the Act and Rules. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the revenue or State. However, the interim order suggests the revenue authorities computed a tax and penalty amount for the release of goods and conveyance.