Shiv Shakti Textiles vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court declined to interfere with the adjudication proceedings initiated by the notice in Form GST MOV-10 under Section 130 of the GST Act, stating that if a final order of confiscation is passed, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail appropriate legal remedies. However, the Court found it necessary to prevent the goods and vehicle from remaining under detention indefinitely. The petitioner offered to deposit Rs. 89,000/- towards tax, penalty, and interest. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit this amount with the respondent No. 2. Upon such deposit, respondent No. 2 was directed to release the vehicle and goods at the earliest. The Court clarified that it had not gone into the merits of the matter. The issue of the legality of the confiscation notice itself was not decided, but the immediate release of goods was ordered upon payment.

Facts

The petitioner, Shiv Shakti Textiles, received an order for yarn from Uttar Pradesh and arranged for delivery from its sister concern in Maharashtra. The petitioner prepared invoices and generated an e-way bill. It is alleged that the place of dispatch was inadvertently not mentioned as Maharashtra in the e-way bill. During transit, the GST Checking Squad intercepted the vehicle and issued a detention order on November 28, 2020, under Section 129 of the GST Act. Subsequently, a confiscation notice in Form GST MOV-10 was issued on the same day. The petitioner had also filed an application for provisional release of the goods and vehicle under Section 67(6) of the Act, on which no order was passed. The petitioner filed this writ application challenging the confiscation notice and seeking release of the truck and goods.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should interfere with the adjudication proceedings initiated by the issuance of a notice in Form GST MOV-10 under Section 130 of the GST Act, when the petitioner has a statutory remedy available upon passing of a final order of confiscation? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the issuance of the confiscation notice was illegal and invalid. However, the primary focus of the petitioner's argument, as reflected in the court's decision, was on the immediate release of the detained goods and vehicle, proposing to deposit a sum of Rs. 89,000/- towards tax, penalty, and interest. Revenue's contention: The learned AGP for the State-respondents submitted that if the Court permits the authority to adjudicate the notice in Form GST MOV-10, there should be no difficulty in releasing the goods and vehicle upon the deposit of Rs. 89,000/-.