M/S Roshani Traders Through Proprietor Arun Kumar Dutta vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Roshani 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. RJ-07-GD-7363) detained on March 26, 2019. The petitioner also challenged a subsequent notice dated April 16, 2019, issued by Respondent No. 2 for confiscation of goods or conveyance and levy of penalty under Section 130 of the GST Act. The petitioner argued that these actions were illegal, unlawful, contrary to facts and evidence, violative of natural justice, and against the provisions of the Act and Rules. The High Court, on May 9, 2019, passed an interim order directing the release of the detained goods and conveyance, subject to the petitioner paying the computed tax and penalty and filing an undertaking to make good any deficit liability.

Held

The High Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case. It noted that the writ application was filed at the stage of adjudication of the show-cause notice (MOV-10) and that a coordinate bench had previously passed an order for the release of the detained goods and conveyance. The Court directed the writ applicant to appear before the concerned authority and participate in the confiscation proceedings. The applicant was permitted to file a reply and make submissions to get the notice discharged. The authority was instructed to take an appropriate decision in accordance with the law, considering the principle of law explained in the case of Synergy Fertichem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat (SCA/4730/2019). The writ application was disposed of in these terms.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order of detention passed by Respondent No. 2 under Section 129(1) of the GST Act, and the subsequent notice for confiscation and penalty under Section 130 of the GST Act, are illegal, unlawful, and violative of principles of natural justice and statutory provisions? (Question of law and fact, concerning Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the actions of Respondent No. 2 were illegal, unlawful, contrary to the facts and evidence on record, violative of principles of natural justice, and against the provisions of the GST Act and Rules. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue or State respondents. However, the interim order suggests that the authorities had computed tax and penalty, implying a contention that such computation was justified.