Priya Traders Through Proprietor Hirenkumar Mukundbhai Upadhyay vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The petitioner, Priya Traders, filed a writ application challenging an order of detention passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 129(1) of the GST Act concerning goods and a conveyance (Truck No. GJ-27-X-3908) detained on May 19, 2019. The detention was reportedly due to the non-tender of an e-way bill. The petitioner had paid Rs. 59,904 towards tax and penalty on May 21, 2019, after receiving a notice in Form GSTMOV10. Subsequently, a show-cause notice under Section 130 of the GST Act was issued for confiscation of goods and conveyance. The High Court, by way of ad-interim relief, directed the release of the goods and conveyance upon the petitioner furnishing an undertaking to make good any deficit liability and submitting proof of payment and identification documents.

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner had already made the requisite payment towards tax and liability as determined under Section 129 of the Act, and the conveyance and goods had been released. The Court observed that a show-cause notice under Section 130 of the Act for confiscation had been issued. The Court directed the writ-applicant to appear before the authority and file an appropriate reply to the notice issued in GST-MOV-10. The petitioner was permitted to place reliance on the recent pronouncement of the Court in the case of Synergy Fertichem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat [Special Civil Application No.4730 of 2019]. The writ-application was disposed of with these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order of detention passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 129(1) of the GST Act, and the subsequent notice for confiscation under Section 130 of the GST Act, are illegal, unlawful, and violative of principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Act and Rules. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the actions of respondent no. 2 were illegal and contrary to the facts and evidence. They relied on previous orders passed by the Court in identical situations. The petitioner also submitted that they had already made the payment of tax and penalty as computed by the respondents, and the goods and conveyance should be released. Revenue's Contention: The respondent-State placed on record an order passed in a similar Special Civil Application and submitted that a similar order may be followed in the present petition. The revenue did not contest the fact that payment had been made by the petitioner.