Panchhi Traders Through Proprietor Narendra Danabhai Daki vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court held that since the matter was at the stage of a show-cause notice issued under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the writ-applicant should appear before the authority and file an appropriate reply. Regarding the release of goods and conveyance, the Court directed that it would be open for the writ-applicant to prefer an application under Section 67(6) of the Act for provisional release. If such an application is preferred, the concerned authority shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law within a period of one week from the date of filing. The Court did not decide on the merits of the confiscation or penalty at this stage, focusing on directing the parties to follow the prescribed statutory procedures.

Facts

The petitioner, Panchhi Traders, through its proprietor Narendra Danabhai Daki, filed a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Gujarat High Court. The petitioner sought to quash a notice in Form GST MOV-10 issued by respondent no. 2, which called upon the petitioner to show cause why the seized goods and the conveyance used for their transfer should not be confiscated under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and why penalty and fine should not be recovered. Alternatively, the petitioner prayed for the release of the seized goods and truck under Section 129(1)(a) of the Act. The petitioner also sought interim directions for the release of the seized goods and truck pending the final disposal of the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when the matter is at the stage of a show-cause notice under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and the petitioner has not yet filed a reply before the authority. 2. Whether the seized goods and conveyance should be released provisionally under Section 67(6) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner sought the quashing of the notice in Form GST MOV-10 and the release of seized goods and the truck. The petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution for these reliefs, indicating a challenge to the procedural fairness or legality of the action. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not explicitly record any specific contentions made by the revenue or State respondents. However, the Court's directions imply that the statutory procedures were to be followed.