Court quashes CGST Act confiscation order, emphasizes procedural compliance, directs speedy resolution.

The court quashed the confiscation order issued under the CGST Act, citing illegal detention of goods and vehicle, unilateral presumption by the respondent, and violation of prescribed procedures. It emphasized the necessity for the proper officer to pass a speaking order after considering objections and quantifying tax and penalty before confiscation. The court restored the penalty notice, directed the respondent to expedite consideration of objections, quantify tax and penalty, and release goods upon payment within seven days. The judgment aimed to rectify procedural errors and ensure compliance with statutory requirements in confiscation cases under the CGST Act.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to confiscation order under CGST Act - Illegal detention of goods and vehicle - Unilateral presumption by respondent - Violation of procedure prescribed by Government of India - Quoting wrong provision of law - Confiscation order without quantifying tax and penalty - Consideration of objections filed by petitioners - Proper officer's duty to pass speaking order - Fundamental flaw in passing confiscation order - Quashing of impugned order - Restoration of penalty notice - Expedite consideration of objections and quantification of tax and penalty.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged a confiscation order issued by the respondent under Sections 130(1), (2), and 122(1)(ii) and (iv) of the CGST Act, claiming it to be illegal. They argued that the respondent detained the goods and vehicle for over a month without any order of confiscation or arrears of tax and penalty, violating prescribed procedures. The respondent suspected fraudulent tax invoices without evidence and passed a confiscation order without considering objections, leading to the petitioners seeking relief to set aside the illegal order.

The respondent, represented by the HCGP, defended the order, citing a mistake in quoting the penalty provision but contending that the penalty quantified was valid under Section 129 of the CGST Act. It was argued that any mistakes in orders are not invalid under Section 160 of the Act if they align with the Act's intent. The respondent also alleged the consignor's involvement in bill trading activities, justifying the confiscation order as a penalty order, warranting dismissal of the writ petitions.

The court examined the relevant provisions of the CGST Act concerning detention, seizure, release of goods, and confiscation. It highlighted the necessity for the proper officer to issue a notice specifying tax and penalty payable, consider objections, and pass a speaking order quantifying tax and penalty before confiscation. The court emphasized that passing a confiscation order without quantifying tax and penalty, as in this case, was a fundamental flaw not curable under Section 160 of the Act, especially given the prescribed procedures in Circulars by the Government of India.

Ultimately, the court quashed the impugned confiscation order and restored the penalty notice, directing the respondent to consider objections, quantify tax and penalty, and release goods upon payment. The court stressed the importance of following due process, especially in the early stages of the GST regime, and ordered an expedited resolution within seven days. The judgment aimed to rectify the procedural errors and ensure compliance with statutory requirements in confiscation cases under the CGST Act.

---