Arpit Parcel Service vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 39,512/- in cash towards tax and penalty. The balance amount of Rs. 3,95,098/- was to be secured by way of a bank guarantee from a nationalized bank. Upon compliance with these directions, the respondent authority was ordered to immediately release the goods and the truck. The Court clarified that it had not adjudicated on the merits of the case and the authority remained at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. The petitioner was also to be given an opportunity of being heard before any order under Section 130 of the Act is passed.

Facts

The petitioner, Arpit Parcel Service, filed a Special Civil Application challenging a notice in Form GST MOV-10 dated August 8, 2020, issued by respondent no. 2, and seeking the release of a truck (registration no. MP-09-GF-9801). The truck and its goods were detained on the grounds that the goods were found without an E-way bill. The petitioner, engaged in parcel services based on E-bills, expressed willingness to deposit the tax and penalty, and provide a bank guarantee for the confiscated conveyance's value, citing a previous similar order. The revenue did not press the challenge to the notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of the detained truck and goods upon depositing the tax, penalty, and furnishing a bank guarantee, considering the challenge to the notice in Form GST MOV-10 is not pressed. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner, represented by Mr. Ashish B. Desai, stated they were not pressing the challenge to the notice in Form GST MOV-10. For the release of the truck, they relied on a previous judgment of the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 7519 of 2020, indicating readiness to deposit tax and penalty and furnish a bank guarantee for the value of the confiscated conveyance. They sought a similar order in their case and an opportunity to be heard before any order under Section 130 of the Act is passed. Revenue's arguments: Mr. Dharmesh Devnani, learned AGP for the State, submitted that as the challenge to the show cause notice was not pressed, the court could pass an appropriate order.