Inderdeep Singh Kakar vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The petitioners, Aashiward Marketing, filed Special Civil Applications before the Gujarat High Court challenging orders related to GST. The Court, on January 7, 2021, sought specific information from the State regarding appeals filed against confiscation orders (FORM GST MOV-11), the status of such appeals, applications for provisional release of goods under Section 67(6), and whether 10% of the disputed amount was deposited pending appeal. The State informed the Court that the writ applicants had filed two appeals against the confiscation order, one concerning the goods and the other the vehicle. The petitioners' counsel stated that arguments were completed before the Appellate Authority, and the Department was scheduled to make submissions on January 22, 2021.

Held

The Court noted that the writ applicants had preferred two appeals against the final order of confiscation passed in FORM GST MOV-11, one concerning the goods and the other the vehicle. The Court was informed that arguments had been completed before the Appellate Authority, and the Department was scheduled to make its submissions. The Court disposed of the matters with a direction to the Appellate Authority to complete the hearing of both appeals and pass a final order by January 31, 2021. The Court emphasized that the Appellate Authority should consider the principles of law as explained in the cases of Synergy Fertichem (P) Limited v. State of Gujarat and Insha Trading Co. v. State of Gujarat and Others. If the writ applicants were aggrieved by the Appellate Authority's order, they could avail appropriate legal remedies. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided but focused on directing the expeditious disposal of the appeals.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ-applicant has filed an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act against the final order of confiscation passed in FORM GST MOV-11? 2. If an appeal has been preferred, what is its current status? 3. Whether the writ-applicant has filed an application under Section 67(6) of the Act for the provisional release of goods pending appeal? 4. Whether the writ-applicant has deposited 10% of the total amount sought to be recovered under the Act pending appeal? The petitioner argued that they had filed appeals against the confiscation order and that arguments were concluded, awaiting the Department's submissions. The State confirmed the filing of appeals and assured that the hearing would proceed without further delay. The Court's primary concern was to ensure the expeditious disposal of the pending appeals.