Ramesh Bhaidas Sonwane vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The writ applicant, Ramesh Bhaidas Sonwane, approached the Gujarat High Court seeking the release of truck number MH-18BG-3887 and to quash the notice and order of confiscation of the conveyance. The confiscation order was passed under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the confiscation order was a non-speaking order, as paragraph 5, where reasons were to be recorded, was blank, and the authority had calculated a fine in lieu of confiscation of the conveyance despite only confiscating the goods. An interim order was passed directing the release of the truck upon payment of Rs. 58,576/- as fine in lieu of confiscation, subject to the final outcome of the petition.

Held

The Court noted that an ad-interim relief had already been granted, directing the release of the conveyance upon payment of Rs. 58,576/- as fine in lieu of confiscation. The Court was of the view that given this interim arrangement, the writ applicant should prefer a statutory appeal against the order of confiscation under Section 107 of the Act. The Court permitted the writ applicant to file an appeal within four weeks. If an appeal was filed, the appellate authority was directed to adjudicate it on its own merits. The Court explicitly stated that it was expressing no opinion on the merits of the case. If the writ applicant succeeded in the appeal, they would be entitled to seek a refund of the deposited amount. The writ application was disposed of with these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the confiscation order passed under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is a non-speaking order and thus liable to be quashed? - Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the confiscation order was a non-speaking order because paragraph 5, which was meant to contain the reasons for confiscation, was blank. Furthermore, the authority calculated a fine in lieu of confiscation of the conveyance, even though only the goods were confiscated, which was contrary to the provisions of Section 130. The petitioner contended that no violation of law for tax evasion was established. - Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or State.