Court clarifies notice for confiscation under GST Act, allows provisional release of goods

The court addressed the concerns raised in the writ-application regarding the validity of the notice for confiscation under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It directed the respondent to clarify the alleged contravention specified in the notice and the proper recipient of the notice. Additionally, the court allowed the writ-applicants to file for the provisional release of the goods and vehicle under Section 67(6) of the Act, with instructions for prompt review and issuance of an appropriate order. The court did not provide a specific ruling on the legality of Circular No. 41/15/2018-GST or the awarding of costs to the petitioner.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of a notice for confiscation under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Legality of Circular No. 41/15/2018-GST dated April 13, 2018.
3. Release of goods and vehicle without demanding security.
4. Seeking any other writ, order, or direction deemed fit by the court.
5. Cost of the petition to be awarded to the petitioner.

Issue 1: Validity of Notice for Confiscation:
The writ-application challenged a notice for confiscation dated 23.09.2019 and argued that the notice under section 130 of the CGST Act did not specify the alleged contravention regarding the goods in transit. It was contended that the notice lacked clarity on the grounds for action under section 130 of the CGST Act. The petitioners highlighted that the notice was issued to the driver instead of the proper person responsible for any contravention. The court issued a notice returnable on 20th December 2019 to address these concerns.

Issue 2: Legality of Circular No. 41/15/2018-GST:
The writ-application also sought the quashing of Circular No. 41/15/2018-GST dated April 13, 2018. This circular was challenged on grounds of legality and compliance with the provisions of the Act. The court's order did not specifically address this issue in the detailed analysis provided.

Issue 3: Release of Goods and Vehicle:
The writ-applicants, the owner of the goods and the vehicle, requested the court to direct the respondent to release the goods and vehicle without demanding any security. The court permitted the applicants to file an application under Section 67(6) of the Act for the provisional release of the goods and conveyance. The authority concerned was instructed to promptly review the application and issue an appropriate order within one week of receiving the application.

Issue 4: Seeking Additional Relief:
Apart from challenging the notice and circular, the writ-application sought any other writ, order, or direction that the court deemed fit in the circumstances of the case. The court disposed of the writ-application after addressing the specific issues related to the notice for confiscation and the release of goods and the vehicle.

Issue 5: Cost of the Petition:
Lastly, the writ-application requested the court to award the cost of the petition to the petitioner. The court's final order did not explicitly mention the decision on awarding costs to the petitioner. The judgment referred to a recent pronouncement of the court in a related matter for the writ-applicant to consider while pursuing the case.

---