Arafa Traders vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The petitioner, Arafa Traders, filed a writ application challenging a confiscation notice in Form GST MOV 10 issued by the revenue authorities. The petitioner sought the release of a conveyance and the goods therein. The Court, on January 27, 2022, issued notice and directed the authorities not to pass a final order of confiscation pending the hearing. Subsequently, on February 2, 2022, the petitioner informed the Court that the respondent had passed a final order of confiscation in Form GST MOV 11, and sought to amend the petition. The Court noted that the final order was passed during the pendency of the writ application, despite the interim direction.

Held

The High Court declined to entertain the writ application on the ground that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court reasoned that the petitioner can raise all grounds, including the fact that the final order of confiscation in Form GST MOV 11 was ex-parte or passed without giving an opportunity of hearing, before the Appellate Authority. The Court disposed of the writ application without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter. It reserved the liberty for the writ applicant to file an appropriate appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Court also directed the Appellate Authority to take up the appeal at the earliest and decide it within 15 days from the date of registration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ application is maintainable when a statutory remedy of appeal is available under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the final order of confiscation has been passed. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought to challenge the confiscation notice and release the conveyance, arguing that the proceedings were based on a buyer's complaint which was later withdrawn. The petitioner also contended that the final order of confiscation was passed ex-parte and during the pendency of the writ petition, despite an interim direction not to proceed. Revenue's contention: The revenue's primary contention, as implied by the Court's decision, is that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act, making the writ petition inappropriate.