M/S Mahi Trading Compnay vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petitions with a direction to the respondents. The Court did not decide on the merits of the confiscation notices or the release of seized goods. Instead, it acceded to the petitioner's modified prayer. The Court directed that if the petitioner submits a representation before the concerned Authority, the Authority shall decide that representation in accordance with the law within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The Court also disposed of pending applications.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Mahi Trading Company, filed multiple writ petitions before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging notices for confiscation of goods and conveyances and levy of penalty under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The notices were dated December 17 and 18, 2019. The petitioner sought quashing of these notices and a direction for the release of seized vehicles and goods. Additionally, the petitioner prayed for permission to deposit the due amount in easy installments. During the hearing, the petitioner confined their prayer to a direction for the respondents to decide their representation within 15 days.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notices for confiscation of goods or conveyances and levy of penalty under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, are liable to be quashed? The petitioner argued for quashing of these notices, implying they were not in accordance with the law. The respondents, the State of Uttarakhand and the Union of India, would have contended that the notices were issued in compliance with the provisions of the CGST Act. 2. Whether the seized vehicles and goods are liable to be released? The petitioner sought the release of seized vehicles and goods. The respondents would have argued for their continued detention pending resolution of the penalty proceedings. 3. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to deposit the amount due in easy installments? The petitioner requested permission to pay the outstanding amount in installments. The respondents' stance on this would likely depend on the specific provisions and their discretion under the Act.