D B Impex vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court held that the final order of confiscation passed in Form GST MOV-11 was liable to be quashed and set aside. The reasoning was that the writ applicant was not given an adequate opportunity of hearing before the final order was passed by Respondent No. 3. The Court noted that the petitioner had approached the High Court challenging a prior notice, and the final order was passed during the pendency of these proceedings without a proper hearing. The ratio decidendi is that principles of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard, must be adhered to before passing a final order of confiscation. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated August 27, 2020, and remitted the matter back to Respondent No. 3 with a direction to provide an opportunity of hearing to the writ applicant. The Court also clarified that if there is any delay in hearing by Respondent No. 3, they should consider the plea for provisional release of goods and conveyance under Section 67(6) of the Act. The Court also directed Respondent No. 3 to consider the decision in Synergy Fertichem Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat.

Facts

The petitioner, D B Impex, a proprietary concern, filed a writ application challenging the confiscation notice dated August 15, 2020, and the subsequent order dated August 27, 2020, passed by Respondent No. 3 in Form GST MOV-11. This order resulted in the confiscation of goods and conveyance. The petitioner was informed of a hearing date of August 22, 2020, for a notice in Form GST MOV-10. However, the petitioner had already approached the High Court regarding the MOV-10 notice. The hearing was adjourned, but the final confiscation order in Form GST MOV-11 was passed during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court. The petitioner contended that they were not given an opportunity of hearing before the final order was passed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the final order of confiscation passed in Form GST MOV-11 is liable to be quashed and set aside for want of an opportunity of hearing to the writ applicant, as contemplated under Section 130 of the GST Act, 2017? The Petitioner argued that the impugned order of confiscation in Form GST MOV-11 was passed without affording them a proper opportunity of hearing. They highlighted that the hearing scheduled for August 22, 2020, was adjourned, and the final order was passed during the pendency of their writ petition before the High Court, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The Revenue (State of Gujarat) did not explicitly record arguments against the petitioner's claim of no hearing, but their counsel, Shri Chintan Dave, agreed to a fresh notice of hearing being issued and the petitioner being allowed to make submissions.