Universal Scrap And Metals vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The petitioner, Universal Scrap and Metals, filed a writ-application challenging a detention order dated February 4, 2020, and a confiscation notice dated February 12, 2020, issued by the State Tax Officer, Morbi Squad, Enforcement, Division-9, Bhavnagar. The goods and the conveyance were detained and seized on the grounds that the goods were being transported in contravention of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the goods. The matter had reached the stage of GST-MOV-10. The petitioner had also filed an application under Section 67(6) of the Act for the release of the goods, but no order had been passed on it.

Held

The Court declined to enter into the merits of the confiscation notice at the current stage, considering it was at the GST-MOV-10 stage. The Court treated the petitioner's application as one made in terms of Section 67(6) of the Act. The Court directed the State Tax Officer, Morbi Squad, Enforcement, Division-9, Bhavnagar, to immediately consider the application filed by the writ-applicant under Section 67(6) and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law within one week of receiving the writ. The Court noted that the general principles governing Sections 129 and 130 of the Act had been discussed in a previous case, F S Enterprise Vs. State of Gujarat. It was open for the writ-applicant to make their case before the authority for both the discharge of the notice in GST-MOV-10 and the release of goods under Section 67(6).

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should enter into the merits of the confiscation notice issued under Section 130 of the Central/Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, at the present stage. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that an application under Section 67(6) of the Act for the release of goods had been filed, and no order had been passed on it, necessitating the writ-application. The petitioner sought quashing of the detention and confiscation orders and the release of the truck and goods. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state authorities. However, the action under challenge was initiated by the State Tax Officer.