TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds confiscation order, grants relief to protect goods & state interest in dispute over document discrepancies.</h1> <h3>M/s. Hari Om Company Versus State Of Gujarat</h3> M/s. Hari Om Company Versus State Of Gujarat - 2020 (373) E.L.T. 190 (Guj.) Issues:1. Writ application under Article 226 seeking relief from detention order and confiscation notice.2. Detention of goods in transit due to discrepancies in documents.3. Passing of orders under Sections 129 and 130 of the Central/Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.4. Quashing of final order of confiscation without giving an opportunity of hearing.5. Adjudication of confiscation proceedings under Section 130 of the Act.6. Legal challenge to detention and seizure as illegal.7. Opposition citing irregularities in documents and further inquiry findings.8. Statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act.9. Court's decision not to interfere in the adjudication proceedings but granting relief to protect goods and state's interest.Analysis:The writ applicant, a sole proprietor of a firm dealing in aracanut and spices, sought relief through a writ application under Article 226 for quashing a detention order and confiscation notice related to a consignment intercepted during transit. The goods were seized due to discrepancies in documents when the vehicle was intercepted in March 2020. Initially, orders were passed under Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act, determining tax and penalty and calling for a show cause on confiscation. A final confiscation order was quashed for lack of hearing, leading to ongoing adjudication proceedings under Section 130. The applicant challenged the detention as illegal, claiming valid documents were present, and no breach of laws occurred.The Government Pleader opposed the writ, citing irregularities found during further inquiry, including defective documents, questionable quality of goods, and discrepancies in business operations. The Pleader highlighted the statutory appeal provision under Section 107 for aggrieved parties. The court, after hearing both parties and reviewing the case, decided not to interfere in the ongoing adjudication but granted relief to protect the goods and state's interest. The applicant was directed to deposit a specified amount towards tax and penalty and provide a bank guarantee to ensure protection of goods pending adjudication. The court clarified that its decision did not reflect on the case's merits, leaving the adjudication proceedings to proceed independently.In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ application by directing the applicant to comply with the specified deposit and guarantee conditions for the release of goods and the vehicle, emphasizing the need to safeguard both the applicant's and the state's interests during the ongoing adjudication of the confiscation proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
