Messers Sb Traders Through Proprietor Sumair K Through Power Of Attorney vs. State Of Gujarat Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance

Held

The Court chose not to delve into the jurisdictional issues raised by the petitioner regarding the Chief Commissioner of State Tax. Instead, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested that the writ petition be disposed of by relegating the applicants to their alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Act, especially since a final order of confiscation had been passed. The Court acknowledged that such an order would be appealable. The Court directed the concerned authority to immediately take up the application filed by the writ applicants under Section 67(6) of the Act for the provisional release of the goods and conveyance and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within one week from the date of the order. The Court explicitly clarified that it had not gone into the merits of the matter. The primary relief granted was a direction for expeditious disposal of the provisional release application.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s SB Traders, filed a writ application challenging several orders and notifications issued by the State Tax authorities. These included a confiscation notice (MOV-10), an order dated 23.06.2017, and notifications dated 29.06.2017 and 30.06.2017, along with another order dated 26.07.2017. The petitioners sought quashing of these actions and a mandamus directing the release of seized goods and a vehicle without demanding security, pending which they sought interim directions for the release of the goods and vehicle detained under Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Acts. The petitioners also raised issues regarding the jurisdiction of the Chief Commissioner of State Tax. It was noted that a final order in Form MOV-11 (confiscation) had been passed, and an application for provisional release of goods under Section 67(6) of the Act, filed three months prior, remained undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Chief Commissioner of State Tax had the requisite jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders and notifications, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the goods and vehicle detained under Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Acts should be released without demanding security, as prayed by the petitioner? 3. Whether the application for provisional release of goods and conveyance filed under Section 67(6) of the Act should be decided expeditiously, as sought by the petitioner? Contentions of the Petitioner: The petitioner argued about the very jurisdiction of the Chief Commissioner of State Tax. They also sought the release of seized goods and vehicle and the expeditious disposal of their application for provisional release. Contentions of the Revenue: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the State of Gujarat (Revenue) on the merits of the case.