Court Refuses Intervention in Challenge to MOV-GST 10 Notice, Emphasizes Fair Hearing

The court declined to intervene at the initial stage of the case challenging the MOV-GST 10 Notice, directing the writ applicant to respond to the show cause notice and engage in confiscation proceedings. Emphasizing the perishable nature of the goods, the court instructed a prompt review of the application for provisional release under Section 67(6) of the Act. A deadline was set for the conclusion of confiscation proceedings, ensuring a fair hearing for the writ applicant without expressing any opinion on the alleged contravention. The judgment emphasized compliance with statutory requirements while addressing the urgency due to the goods' perishable nature.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to MOV-GST 10 Notice
2. Provisional release of goods and conveyance under Section 67(6) of the Act
3. Consideration of application by respondent authorities
4. Nature of goods being perishable

Analysis:

1. The writ applicant sought relief against the MOV-GST 10 Notice issued by respondent No.2 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The notice was issued under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, calling for a show cause on the possible confiscation of goods and conveyance for alleged contravention of Act provisions and Rules. The court heard both parties but refrained from intervening at that point, directing the writ applicant to respond to the show cause notice and participate in confiscation proceedings.

2. The court directed the concerned authority to promptly review the writ applicant's application for provisional release of goods and conveyance under Section 67(6) of the Act. Emphasizing the perishable nature of the goods, specifically cumin seeds, the authority was instructed to make a decision within a week from the date of the court order. The AGP highlighted an earlier application by the writ applicant for release, which was considered to fall under Section 67(6) despite its wording.

3. The judgment set a deadline for the conclusion of confiscation proceedings, requiring an appropriate order by a specified date. The writ applicant was guaranteed a fair hearing during these proceedings, ensuring due process. The court clarified that its decision to dispose of the writ application did not imply any opinion on the alleged contravention by the writ applicant.

4. The court's decision focused on procedural aspects, urging compliance with statutory requirements while acknowledging the urgency due to the perishable nature of the goods involved. The judgment balanced the interests of the parties by providing an opportunity for the writ applicant to present their case adequately within the legal framework.

---