Jmk Solar Energies PVT LTD Thru. Mansukhbhai Devsibhai Nakumbha vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The petitioner, JMK Solar Energies Pvt Ltd, filed a writ application challenging a notice dated May 14, 2019, issued by Respondent No. 2 under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner sought to quash this notice and have the confiscated goods and vehicle (GJ-03-AX-9840) released. Initially, this court, on May 22, 2019, directed the release of the detained goods and conveyance subject to the petitioner paying the tax and penalty computed by the authorities and furnishing an undertaking to make good any deficit liability. Subsequently, the petitioner paid the requisite amount under Section 129 of the Act, leading to the release of the goods and conveyance. However, a show-cause notice under Section 130 was later issued, proposing confiscation.

Held

The Court did not definitively rule on the legality of the Section 130 notice. Instead, it directed the writ-applicant to appear before the authority and file an appropriate reply to the show-cause notice issued under Section 130 (GST-MOV-10). The Court explicitly permitted the writ-applicant to place reliance on the recent pronouncement in the case of Synergy Fertichem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat [Special Civil Application No.4730 of 2019]. The writ-application was disposed of with this direction, implying that the petitioner must first exhaust the statutory remedy by responding to the show-cause notice. The ultimate outcome of the Section 130 proceedings remains to be determined by the authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act? The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 130 was illegal and contrary to the Act. The petitioner sought the release of confiscated goods and the vehicle. The revenue's contention is not explicitly recorded in the provided text, but their action of issuing the Section 130 notice and opposing the petitioner's prayer implies they contend the notice is valid and confiscation is warranted. The court's order suggests the petitioner was advised to appear before the authority and file a reply, potentially relying on a previous judgment of this court in Synergy Fertichem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat.