Kulwant Singh Palvindar Singh Randhawa vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court held that the issuance of GST MOV-11 indicated that the confiscation proceedings had attained finality. Consequently, the Court found that it was open for the writ applicants (petitioners) to prefer an appropriate appeal under Section 107 of the Act, 2017. The Court did not delve into the merits of the confiscation proceedings themselves but rather directed the petitioners to the statutory appellate remedy. The interim relief granted earlier, which involved the release of the conveyance upon furnishing a bank guarantee, was subject to the final outcome of the petition. As the petition was disposed of with a direction to file an appeal, the bank guarantee's ultimate fate would be determined by the appellate proceedings.

Facts

The petitioners, Kulwant Singh Palvindar Singh Randhawa, filed Special Civil Applications before the Gujarat High Court challenging an action by the revenue authorities. On October 25, 2019, a Co-ordinate Bench issued a rule and granted interim relief, directing the respondent No. 2 to release the conveyance bearing number GJ-01-DY-9215 upon the petitioner furnishing a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 1,00,000/-. This bank guarantee was to be subject to the final outcome of the petition. The conveyance was subsequently released upon furnishing the bank guarantee. The Court noted that GST MOV-11 had already been issued, indicating that confiscation proceedings had attained finality.

Key Issues

1. Whether the confiscation proceedings have attained finality, as indicated by the issuance of GST MOV-11, thereby necessitating the petitioner to pursue an appeal under Section 107 of the Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought the release of their conveyance and had furnished a bank guarantee as per the interim order. The core of the petition likely revolved around challenging the confiscation or seeking the release of the goods/conveyance. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's stance, as reflected in the Court's observation, was that the issuance of GST MOV-11 signified the finality of confiscation proceedings. This implies the revenue argued that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner was to file an appeal under the relevant section of the GST Act, rather than continuing with the writ petition.