Airwind Green Energy Limited vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The petitioner, Airwind Green Energy Limited, filed a Special Civil Application challenging orders of detention, confiscation, and physical verification of goods and conveyance. The impugned orders included a detention order dated April 19, 2021 (Form GST-MOV-06), a notice for confiscation of goods and conveyance dated April 19, 2021 (Form-GST-MOV-10), and orders for physical verification dated April 19, 2021, and Form GST MOV 01 & 02. The Court, on May 5, 2021, directed the release of the detained goods and conveyance upon the petitioner paying the full tax amount of Rs. 2,06,119/- and 50% of the penalty, amounting to Rs. 1,03,060/-. The petitioner complied with this order, and the goods and conveyance were released.

Held

The Court held that it was not inclined to interfere with the notice for confiscation of goods and conveyance dated April 19, 2021, at this juncture. The reasoning was based on the fact that the petitioner had already complied with the Court's earlier order for the release of goods and conveyance by paying the stipulated tax and penalty. The Court also noted that the respondents relied on previous orders from coordinate benches, which indicated that the petitioner would have the opportunity to file an appeal against any final confiscation order passed. Therefore, the ratio decidendi is that when an interim order for release has been complied with and a statutory appeal mechanism exists for the final order, the High Court may refrain from interfering at the stage of a notice for confiscation. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition subject to the observations made, implying that the petitioner should pursue the statutory appeal route once a final order is passed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should interfere with the notice for confiscation of goods and conveyance dated April 19, 2021, at this juncture, considering the petitioner has challenged it. The petitioner sought to quash and set aside the detention order, notice for confiscation, and physical verification orders, and sought the release of the truck and goods. The revenue, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader, relied on coordinate bench orders in similar cases (Mohd. Sahil Jakir v. State of Gujarat and Gohil Shaktisinh Girvansinh Transporter v. State of Gujarat) to argue that the petitioner would have an opportunity to file an appeal against the final confiscation order if one were passed. The revenue did not present any other arguments.