Confiscation Order Under GST Act Section 130 Quashed Due to Natural Justice Violations and Inadequate Response Opportunity

The HC quashed a confiscation order under GST Act section 130, finding authorities violated natural justice principles by not allowing the petitioner adequate opportunity to respond before confiscating goods in transit. The court granted interim relief, directing release of goods and conveyance upon petitioner depositing Rs. 40 lakhs and furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,17,74,440 within ten days. The court recognized a prima facie case of procedural impropriety in the hasty succession of events leading to the confiscation order and scheduled further hearing to examine detailed contentions.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order confiscating goods under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 without proper opportunity to respond.

Analysis:
The High Court of Gujarat heard a case challenging an order passed under section 130 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, confiscating goods carried by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the authorities acted without jurisdiction, as the goods were purchased from a specific enterprise and were in transit when confiscated. The petitioner argued that the authorities misused their powers under section 129 of the GST Act, which led to a breach of principles of natural justice by not allowing the petitioner to file a reply before passing the impugned order.

The Court noted the quick succession of events leading to the order, highlighting the authorities' haste in passing the order without giving the petitioner a chance to respond adequately. This rush compromised the petitioner's right to natural justice. The Court acknowledged the need for a detailed examination of the petitioner's contentions but found a prima facie case for granting interim relief due to the evident breach of principles of natural justice.

As a result, the Court directed the release of the goods and conveyance of the petitioner, subject to the petitioner depositing Rs. 40 lakhs with the competent authority within ten days. Additionally, the petitioner was required to furnish a bond of Rs. 1,17,74,440 along with the deposit. Non-compliance with these conditions would render the grant of interim relief void.

The Court set the next hearing on 21.07.2022 and allowed direct service for the second respondent. The petitioner was instructed to serve notice of the Rule on both respondents. The Court also permitted the filing of an affidavit-in-reply before the next hearing date.

---