M/S Radha Tradelinks PVT LTD vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court held that it should not interfere at the stage of adjudication of confiscation proceedings under Section 130 of the GST Act, and such proceedings should proceed in accordance with law. However, to protect the goods from damage and considering the interest of the State, the Court directed the writ applicant to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,70,787/- towards tax and penalty. Additionally, the petitioner was required to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 17,07,876/- from a Nationalized bank, equivalent to 50% of the value of the goods (approximately Rs. 34,15,752/-). Upon compliance with these conditions, the authority was directed to release the goods and the vehicle. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and the adjudication proceedings would be completed independently. The bank guarantee would abide by the final outcome of the adjudication.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Radha Tradelinks Pvt Ltd, engaged in the business of aracanut and spices, filed a writ application challenging the detention order dated 13.08.2020 (Form GST MOV-6) and confiscation notice dated 13.08.2020 (Form GST MOV-10) issued by the GST authorities. A consignment of aracanut being transported from Karnataka to Ahmedabad was intercepted at the Songadh Check Post. The authorities noticed discrepancies in the documents. Initially, an order under Section 129 of the CGST/Gujarat GST Act, 2017, was passed, followed by a notice under Section 130. A prior confiscation order was quashed by the High Court for lack of hearing, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. The present application sought to quash the detention and confiscation proceedings and release the truck and goods.

Key Issues

1. Whether the detention and seizure of the goods and conveyance were illegal, and if the petitioner committed any breach of the GST Act or Rules, as contended by the petitioner? 2. Whether the writ application is maintainable when a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act is available, as argued by the revenue? 3. Whether the Court should interfere at the stage of adjudication of confiscation proceedings under Section 130 of the GST Act? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the detention and seizure were illegal as the driver possessed all valid documents, including the E-Way bill, and no breach of the Act or Rules was committed. They sought quashing of the detention and confiscation orders and release of the goods and conveyance. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue contended that various irregularities were noticed, including the driver not tendering documents, defective documents, and the genuineness of goods and documents requiring verification, and the E-way bill not being tendered. The revenue further argued that a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act was available to the petitioner.