Uma Trading vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The petitioner, Uma Trading, filed a writ application seeking the release of seized goods and a truck under Section 129(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The goods were seized along with the conveyance. A coordinate bench of the High Court, by an order dated October 1, 2019, directed the respondent to release the vehicle and goods provisionally, subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking to pay the amount computed under the notice dated September 21, 2019, issued under Section 130 of the Act, if the petition ultimately failed. The goods were released pursuant to this interim order. The matter was at the stage of Show Cause Notice for confiscation of goods under Form GST MOV 10.

Held

The Court noted that the goods had already been released provisionally pursuant to an earlier interim order. The matter had progressed to the stage of a Show Cause Notice for confiscation under Section 130 of the CGST Act. The Court observed that if a final order of confiscation had been passed, the petitioner should challenge it before the appellate authority by filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Act. Since the goods were already released and the subsequent proceedings for confiscation were to be challenged before the appellate forum, there was nothing further for the High Court to adjudicate in the present writ application. Therefore, the writ application was disposed of.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the respondents to release the seized goods and truck under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017, on terms deemed fit by the Court, or provisionally pending the petition's disposal. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought the release of seized goods and the truck, arguing that the goods were perishable and accompanied by a valid invoice and e-way bill. They prayed for a writ of mandamus or certiorari to direct the respondents to release the goods and truck, either absolutely or provisionally. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue or state. However, the context implies the revenue's action of seizing the goods and issuing a notice under Section 130 of the CGST Act was under challenge.