M/S Bombay Veraval Transport Company vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court disposed of the petition. It noted that after the issuance of notice under Section 129 of the CGST Act, the petitioner had not filed any reply. Consequently, no order had been passed by the Authority under Section 129(3) of the Act. In light of this, the Court directed that whenever the petitioner files a reply to the notice under Section 129(3), the respondent-Authority shall consider it after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in consonance with Sub-Section 4 of Section 129 of the Act, and pass an appropriate order. The petition was accordingly disposed of, and the notice was discharged. No specific finding was given on the validity of the impugned order itself, as the proceedings were to continue at the Authority level.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Bombay Veraval Transport Company, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the second respondent (an authority) on December 4, 2019. The petitioner's vehicle, bearing registration number GJ-11-Y-9199, was intercepted on December 4, 2019. It was found that out of 300 boxes of medicines, Part-B of the E-way bill was missing for 40 boxes. The authority proposed tax and penalty on these 40 boxes. The High Court, on December 6, 2019, directed the release of the vehicle and the goods for which valid invoices and E-way bills were available, noting the perishable nature of the goods. Subsequently, the remaining 40 boxes were also released upon furnishing security. The petitioner had not filed a reply to the notice issued under Section 129 of the CGST Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 4.12.2019 passed by the second respondent is liable to be quashed and set aside, considering the provisions of Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner contended that the vehicle and goods should be released, especially since the goods were perishable medicines and some had valid documentation. The petitioner sought quashing of the order and release of the vehicle and goods. The revenue/state argued that a notice under Section 129 was issued, and the petitioner had not filed a reply. The court's initial order on December 6, 2019, partially directed the release of goods accompanied by valid documentation, pending further proceedings.