High Court quashes GST confiscation order, cites lack of hearing. Remits for fresh hearing.

The High Court quashed the final order of confiscation issued in a GST case due to the lack of opportunity for a hearing before the order was passed. The Court remitted the matter back to the authority for a fresh hearing, directing the issuance of a new notice to allow the applicant to present their case. The Court clarified that its decision was solely based on the procedural lapse and did not express any opinion on the merits of the case. As a result, the appeal was allowed, the confiscation order was quashed, and the case was remitted for a fair hearing.

---

---

Issues:
- Writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking relief against order of confiscation issued in GST MOV-11
- Lack of opportunity of hearing before passing final order of confiscation
- Quashing of final order of confiscation and remittance for fresh hearing

Analysis:
1. The writ applicant filed a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking relief against the order of confiscation issued in GST MOV-11. The applicant prayed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus or Certiorari to quash the order of confiscation and detention notices/orders issued by respondent No.2. The applicant also requested the release of seized goods pending disposal of the petition and sought ex parte ad interim relief.

2. The materials on record revealed that the writ applicant, engaged in the business of Tobacco, received an order for supply of Tobacco from a firm in Meghalaya. During transit, the mobile squad of respondent No.2 intercepted the vehicle and observed various discrepancies, leading to the issuance of a show-cause notice in Form GST MOV-10. However, before the applicant could respond, a final order of confiscation in Form GST MOV-11 was passed on the same day without providing an opportunity of hearing.

3. The High Court, upon review, found that the authority had failed to grant the writ applicant an opportunity of hearing before passing the final order of confiscation. Due to this procedural lapse, the Court decided to quash the final order of confiscation issued by the State Tax Officer and remitted the matter to the authority for a fresh hearing. The Court directed the authority to issue a new notice of hearing, allowing the applicant to present their case for discharge of the notice issued in Form GST MOV-10.

4. The Court clarified that its decision to quash the order was solely based on the lack of opportunity for a hearing and did not express any opinion on the merits of the case. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the order of confiscation in Form GST MOV-11 was quashed, and the matter was remitted for a fair hearing. The rule was made absolute to the specified extent, concluding the disposal of the appeal.

---