Appeal directed under CGST Act for goods and vehicle ownership dispute. Prioritize, consider submissions, refer to Circular.

The court disposed of the writ application, directing the writ-applicant to prefer an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The appellate authority was instructed to prioritize the appeal, consider all submissions and relevant judgments, and refer to Circular No.41/15/2018-GST for guidance. Separate appeals were required for the owner of the goods and the owner of the vehicle, with the appellate authority providing a hearing opportunity to the writ-applicant.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the order of confiscation of goods and conveyance.
2. Quashing of the order of detention of goods and conveyance.
3. Release of seized goods and conveyance under Section 129(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
4. Maintainability of the writ application versus the requirement to prefer an appeal under Section 107 of the Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of the Order of Confiscation of Goods and Conveyance:
The writ-applicant sought to quash the order of confiscation issued under Form GST MOV-11 dated 21.10.2019. The applicant argued that the driver had all necessary documents as per Rule 138A of the CGST Rules, and no discrepancies were found during physical verification. The applicant contended that the authorities should have released the goods and conveyance immediately after verification, as per Clause 2(g) of the Circular dated 13.04.2018. However, the authorities detained the goods under Section 129 of the CGST Act and subsequently issued a notice under Section 130. The respondent argued that the writ-applicant should prefer an appeal under Section 107 of the Act, as the final order of confiscation had been passed.

2. Quashing of the Order of Detention of Goods and Conveyance:
The writ-applicant also sought to quash the order of detention issued in Form GST MOV-06 dated 06.09.2019. The applicant claimed that there was no discrepancy found during physical verification, and the detention was unjustified. The respondent countered that the search of the business premises revealed that the address provided was incorrect, raising doubts about the genuineness of the transaction. The respondent maintained that the detention was justified based on the search findings.

3. Release of Seized Goods and Conveyance under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act:
The writ-applicant requested the release of the seized goods and conveyance under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act. The applicant argued that the entire proceedings under Section 129 should be completed within 14 days, and the goods should be released if no discrepancies were found. The respondent argued that the transaction was suspicious, and the detention and subsequent confiscation were justified. The court noted that the period of limitation for filing an appeal was expiring and directed the writ-applicant to prefer an appeal at the earliest.

4. Maintainability of the Writ Application versus the Requirement to Prefer an Appeal under Section 107 of the Act:
The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ application, arguing that the writ-applicant should prefer an appeal under Section 107 of the Act. The court agreed with the respondent and directed the writ-applicant to file an appeal. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the submissions and expected the appellate authority to deal with each submission in detail. The court emphasized the need for the appellate authority to prioritize the appeal and decide it within 15 days from the date of conclusion of the hearing.

Conclusion:
The court disposed of the writ application, directing the writ-applicant to prefer an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The appellate authority was instructed to prioritize the appeal and decide it on merits, considering all submissions and relevant judgments. The court also directed the appellate authority to refer to Circular No.41/15/2018-GST for guidance. Two separate appeals were required—one by the owner of the goods and another by the owner of the vehicle. The court ensured that the appellate authority would provide an opportunity for a hearing to the writ-applicant.

---