Hariom Traders Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court)
Summary: The Gujarat High Court, in Hariom Traders Through Proprietor Faladu Yatin Pravinbhai Vs State of Gujarat, directed the GST authorities to decide an application for provisional release of detained cumin seeds and a vehicle within one week under Section 67(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Division Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Ilesh J. Vora also directed that the pending confiscation proceedings be concluded by 28 February 2021. The Court specifically noted that the detained goods were perishable cumin seeds and declined to interfere with the confiscation proceedings at the show-cause notice stage.
The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging a confiscation show-cause notice issued in Form GST MOV-10 under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017. The notice called upon the petitioner to explain why the goods and conveyance should not be confiscated for alleged contraventions of the Act and Rules. The petitioner sought quashing of the notice and immediate release of the goods and truck bearing registration number RJ 19 GE 9378. Alternatively, the petitioner requested provisional release under Section 67(6) and directions for consideration of applications dated 4 November 2020 and 10 November 2020. The judicial order does not specify the exact alleged contravention, the quantity or value of the cumin seeds, or the date on which the goods were initially detained.
The Court heard Mr. Kishankumar Maurya for the petitioner and Mr. Chintan Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader, for the State. Observing that the matter was at the stage of a confiscation show-cause notice under Section 130, the Court declined to interfere and expected the petitioner to submit a reply and participate in the adjudication proceedings. However, it directed the competent authority to immediately consider the petitioner’s application under Section 67(6) for provisional release of the goods and conveyance. When the State’s counsel drew attention to the application dated 4 November 2020, the Court observed that although it was not properly worded, it should nevertheless be treated as an application for provisional release under Section 67(6). The perishable nature of the cumin seeds was expressly taken into consideration.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT
1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
“A. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, quashing and setting aside the MOVGST 10 Notice issued by the respondent No.2 and further be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to release goods and conveyance bearing Truck No.RJ 19 GE 9378.
B. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to release the goods and conveyance in view of the provisions of Section 67 (6) of the Act forthwith.
C. During the admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant an interim relief directing the respondent No.2 to release the goods and conveyance in question forthwith on any terms and conditions as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.
D. During the admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the application dated 04.11.2020 and 10.11.2020 filed by the petitioner and to decided for the same in accordance with law in the interest of justice.”
2. We have heard Mr. Kishankumar Maurya, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant and Mr. Chintan Dave, the learned AGP for the State respondents.
3. It appears from the materials on record that the matter is at the stage of MOVGST 10 issued under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “the Act, 2017”). Thus, the writ applicant has been issued with the showcause notice under Section 130 of the Act, 2017 calling upon him to show cause as to why the goods and conveyance should not be confiscated for the contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules as alleged in MOV 10.
4. We are not inclined to interfere in this writ application at this point of time. We expect the writ applicant to file his reply to the showcause notice and appear before the authority in the confiscation proceedings. However, we direct the authority concerned to immediately look into the application filed by the writ application under Section 67(6) of the Act for the provisional release of the goods and the conveyance and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of this order is presented before the authority. We may also observe one more thing that the goods are of the perishable in nature being cumin seeds.
5. At this stage, Mr. Chintan Dave, the learned AGP invited the attention of this Court to the application dated 04.11.2020 addressed by the writ applicant to the respondent No.2 (at AnnexureE, at page 23 of the paperbook) for the release of the truck and the goods. Although the application is not happily worded, but the same shall be considered to be one under Section 67 (6) of the Act for the provisional release of the goods and the vehicle.
6. In such circumstances, the confiscation proceedings also should be concluded with an appropriate order latest by 28.02.2021. The writ applicant shall be given an adequate opportunity of hearing in the confiscation proceedings.
7. With the above, this writ application stands disposed of. We clarify that we have, otherwise, not expressed any opinion as regards the alleged contravention.
