Sumit Alloys Through Its Proprietor Sh. Sumit Wahi vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Sumit Alloys, through its proprietor Sh. Sumit Wahi, filed a writ petition seeking to quash a notice in Form GST MOV-10 dated January 11, 2023. The respondents, State of Punjab and others, filed a reply. The State counsel submitted that the petitioner failed to respond to the MOV-10 notice, leading the proper officer to pass an order of confiscation in Form MOV-11 dated January 25, 2023. The State counsel also stated that this order is appealable. The petitioner's counsel then requested the release of goods, offering to provide a bank guarantee for the penalty and fine amount, which was accepted by the Court.

Held

The Court did not explicitly rule on the validity of the MOV-10 notice or the MOV-11 confiscation order. Instead, it accepted the petitioner's offer to furnish a bank guarantee for the amount of penalty and fine as per the order dated January 25, 2023. The Court directed the respondents to release the petitioner's goods provisionally, subject to the furnishing of this bank guarantee within seven days. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's willingness to secure the disputed amount, thereby resolving the immediate issue of goods detention. The Court did not decide on the merits of the confiscation order itself, leaving the appealable remedy open.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned notice in Form GST MOV-10 dated January 11, 2023, and the subsequent order of confiscation in Form MOV-11 dated January 25, 2023, are liable to be quashed. The petitioner argued for the quashing of these notices and orders. The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to respond to the notice MOV-10, justifying the subsequent confiscation order. They further argued that the order dated January 25, 2023, is an appealable order, and the petitioner should pursue that remedy. The petitioner's primary request was for the release of goods upon furnishing a bank guarantee for the penalty and fine.