Detention Order & Confiscation Quashed, Goods Released

The court quashed the detention order and confiscation notice, directing the release of goods and vehicle as valid documents were produced without discrepancies. The court emphasized that detention and confiscation were unjustified, allowing the release without requiring a bond and proceeding with the inquiry against the purchaser separately.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashment of the detention order in Form GST MOV 6.
2. Quashment of the confiscation notice in Form GST MOV 10.
3. Release of goods and vehicle.
4. Provisional release of goods and vehicle.
5. Interim relief for release of goods and vehicle.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashment of the Detention Order in Form GST MOV 6:
The petitioner sought to quash the detention order issued in Form GST MOV 6, arguing that it was "wholly without jurisdiction, arbitrary and illegal." The petitioner contended that the goods were accompanied by all necessary documents (tax invoice, transport receipt, and e-way bill) and that no discrepancies were found during the physical verification. The court noted that the physical verification report in Form GST MOV 4 found no discrepancies, and the detention order was issued without valid grounds. The court referenced the case of *Insha Trading Company vs. State of Gujarat*, where it was held that detention orders issued without finding discrepancies in documents are not valid.

2. Quashment of the Confiscation Notice in Form GST MOV 10:
The petitioner also sought to quash the confiscation notice issued in Form GST MOV 10, arguing it was issued arbitrarily based on discrepancies related to post-transaction activities of the buyer, who allegedly claimed wrongful input tax credit. The court observed that no proceedings had been initiated against the buyer under the GST Act, and the confiscation notice was issued without proper grounds. The court referenced the case of *Mahadev Enterprise vs. State of Gujarat*, where it was held that input tax credit cannot be denied without establishing that the transactions are not genuine.

3. Release of Goods and Vehicle:
The petitioner requested the release of the detained goods and vehicle. The court noted that the documents produced by the driver (invoice and e-way bill) were in order, and no discrepancies were found during the physical verification. The court referenced the case of *Majid Bilalbhai Akbani vs. State of Gujarat*, where it was held that goods and conveyance should be released if valid documents are produced. The court ordered the release of the goods and vehicle, emphasizing that the detention was based on the buyer's past transactions, which were not relevant to the current transport.

4. Provisional Release of Goods and Vehicle:
In the alternative, the petitioner sought provisional release of the goods and vehicle. The court, having already ordered the release of the goods and vehicle based on the validity of the documents, did not need to address this issue separately.

5. Interim Relief for Release of Goods and Vehicle:
The petitioner sought interim relief for the release of the goods and vehicle pending the final hearing. The court, having ordered the release of the goods and vehicle based on the validity of the documents, effectively granted this relief.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, directing the release of the goods and conveyance. The show-cause notice of inquiry against the purchaser would proceed without interference. The court emphasized that the detention and confiscation were not sustainable as the documents were in order and there were no discrepancies. The request for a bond from the petitioner was not found sustainable, as there was no contrary evidence against the petitioner in relation to the current transaction.

---