Mishkat Agro Industries Private Limited vs. Chief Commissioner

Held

The High Court, while acknowledging the perishable nature of the seized goods, chose not to delve into the legality and validity of the GST authorities' actions at that stage. Instead, the Court directed the concerned authority to consider the petitioner's application dated September 29, 2020, for the provisional release of the goods, filed under Section 67(6) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. The authority was instructed to pass an appropriate order within one week from the date of the judgment in accordance with the law. The Court explicitly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. The primary ratio for the decision was the urgent need to address the perishable nature of the goods, leading to a procedural direction rather than a substantive ruling on the legality of the seizure.

Facts

The petitioner, Mishkat Agro Industries Private Limited, filed a writ application challenging an order of seizure (Form GST INS-02), an order of prohibition (Form GST INS-03), and an intimation of payment (Form GST DRC-03) issued by the GST authorities. The petitioner argued that the action taken by the authorities was not in accordance with the law and that the seized goods, being perishable, should be released promptly. The petitioner had previously filed an application dated September 29, 2020, under Section 67(6) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, for the provisional release of 7312 bags weighing 252,120 kg.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the GST authorities in seizing and prohibiting the release of perishable goods was in accordance with the law, specifically concerning the provisions related to seizure and release of goods under the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the entire action of the authorities was not in accordance with law and emphasized the perishable nature of the goods, necessitating their earliest release. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue or state's side regarding the legality of the action. The court noted that it was not inclined to go into the issue of legality and validity at that point.