M/S Ruksho Products Proprietor Juned Rasulbhai Shaikh vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ruksho Products, filed a writ application challenging an order of detention in Form GST MOV-06 dated November 6, 2020, and a notice in Form GST MOV-10 dated December 9, 2020. The goods and conveyance were seized due to noticed discrepancies. The notice under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017, called upon the petitioner to show cause why the goods and conveyance should not be confiscated. The inquiry was ongoing, and no final decision had been taken. The petitioner had filed a detailed reply to the notice. The goods, being tobacco products, were perishable and had been detained since November 6, 2020.

Held

The Court acknowledged that the inquiry into the confiscation of goods and conveyance was still in progress and that the authority had yet to take a final decision. The Court directed that the inquiry be completed at the earliest, after due consideration of the reply filed by the writ applicant and after providing an opportunity of hearing. The Court also noted that if the goods are perishable, it is open for the writ applicant to prefer an application under Section 67(6) of the Act for the provisional release of the goods and conveyance. If such an application is filed, the respondent No. 2 shall immediately look into it and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ongoing inquiry into the confiscation of goods and conveyance, initiated by the notice in Form GST MOV-10, should be expedited, considering the perishable nature of the goods and the delay in final decision-making? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that despite filing a detailed reply to the show cause notice, no final decision had been taken by the authorities. The goods, being perishable tobacco products, were detained since November 6, 2020, leading to potential loss. The petitioner sought expedition of the inquiry and a final decision. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the State respondent regarding the delay or the petitioner's contentions. The focus was on the procedural steps and the available remedies.