Jay Goga Traders vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court declined to directly quash the confiscation order or order the release of the perishable goods. It held that the writ applicant should first prefer a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act against the order passed under Section 130 of the Act. The Court noted that the application for provisional release under Section 67(6) of the Act could only be preferred after filing the appeal. However, as a concession, the Court directed that if an appeal is filed, the concerned authority shall immediately take up the application for provisional release of goods and conveyance under Section 67(6) of the Act and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of 8 days thereafter. The Court explicitly stated that it had not gone into the merits of the matter. The writ application was disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The writ applicant, Jay Goga Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an order of confiscation of perishable goods and levy of penalty under Section 130 of the GST Act, passed by Respondent No. 2. The applicant sought quashing of the confiscation order, release of the perishable goods, or alternatively, provisional release of the goods under Section 67(6) of the Act. The goods were initially detained/seized under Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act. The applicant stated that a final order of confiscation had been passed and that they intended to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ applicant is entitled to a writ of mandamus to quash the order of confiscation of perishable goods and levy of penalty under Section 130 of the GST Act and direct the release of such goods, considering the goods are perishable in nature. 2. Whether the writ applicant is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to provisionally release the perishable goods under Section 67(6) of the GST Act, in lieu of the confiscation order. Contentions of the Petitioner: The petitioner argued that the goods were perishable and therefore should be released. They also sought provisional release of the goods under Section 67(6) of the Act, as a final confiscation order had been passed. They indicated an intention to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Act. Contentions of the Revenue: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the Revenue or State respondents regarding the merits of the confiscation or the entitlement to provisional release. However, the Court's direction implies that the Revenue's role is to process the application for provisional release upon the filing of the appeal.