Shiv Agro Through Ashokkumar Kantibhai Patel vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The High Court declined to interfere with the matter, citing that a final order of confiscation of goods and conveyance had already been passed by the concerned authority in Form GST MOV-11. Consequently, the Court relegated the writ applicant to prefer a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the G.S.T. Act before the appellate authority. Furthermore, the Court clarified that pending the appeal, it would be open for the writ applicant to file an application under Section 67(6) of the Act for the provisional release of the goods. This provisional release could be granted upon execution of a bond and furnishing of security, or on payment of applicable tax, penalty, and interest. The Court directed that if such an application is filed, the concerned authority must consider it and pass an appropriate order within one week of its receipt. No issue was expressly left undecided; the Court disposed of the writ applications with these directions.

Facts

The writ applicant, Shiv Agro, through Ashokkumar Kantibhai Patel, filed three Special Civil Applications challenging the action of Respondent No. 2 (an authority under the GST Act) in stopping goods and conveyance (Truck No. RJ.19.GE.8445). The petitioner sought quashing of this action, arguing it was illegal, unlawful, contrary to facts and evidence, violative of natural justice, and against the GST Act and Rules. The petitioner also prayed for interim relief to release the goods and conveyance. The High Court noted that an order in Form GST MOV-11 had already been passed, indicating a final order of confiscation of goods and conveyance.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should interfere in the matter when a final order of confiscation has been passed by the concerned authority under the GST Act, thereby declining to entertain the writ petition. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the action of stopping the goods and conveyance was illegal, unlawful, contrary to facts and evidence, violative of principles of natural justice, and against the provisions of the GST Act and Rules. They sought a writ of mandamus to quash and set aside this action and for interim relief to release the goods and conveyance. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not explicitly record any specific arguments made by the State (Respondent No. 1) or the concerned authority (Respondent No. 2) beyond their appearance. However, the Court's decision implies that the existence of a final confiscation order was a significant factor.