civil application against order passed
Case Title | A K Enterprises vs State of Gujarat |
Court | Ahmedabad High Court |
Honorable Judges | Justice J.B.Pardiwala & Justice Nisha M.Thakore |
Citation | 2022 (2) GSTPanacea 257 HC Ahmedabad C/SCA/15337/2021 |
Judgement Date | 03-February-2022 |
Council for Petitioner | Ashutosh Dave Jigar G Gadhavi |
Council for Respondent | Utkarsh Sharma |
Section | Section 68,129 & 130 of the Act |
In Favour of | Prefer to appeal before appellate authority |
The Ahmedabad High Court bench of Justice J.B.Pardiwala & Justice Nisha M.Thakore has held that writ applicant herein as well as the applicant of the Civil Application to prefer an appropriate appeal under Section 107 of the Act before the Appellate Authority
FACTS OF THE CASE
Quash and set aside impugned orders and show cause notice under Forms MOV-06, MOV-10 and MOV-11 dated 23.09.2021 and 07.10.2021 respectively Further be pleased to direct the Respondent no.2 to release the goods in question and the conveyance bearing registration no.GJ37 T 8745 which was intercepted at Kamrej, Surat forthwith The writ applicant herein appears to be the owner of the goods which came to be seized and now finally confiscated under Section 130 of the GST Act, 2017 The vehicle no. GJ37 T 8745 was intercepted on 23rd September 2021 at 10:25 a.m. at Kamrej toll plaz, MOV 10 was issued on 23rd September 2021 Dealer is unable to prove the genuineness of the purchase as no proof of movement of goods purchased by the seller in this transaction are produced. Hence, it seems only bill was purchased and not goods. Hence, order under Section 130 of the SGST Act has been passed. The dues mentioned above are to be paid by 23rd September 2021. The learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant vehemently submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 in MOV – 11 confiscating the goods as well as the conveyance is a non-speaking order. The learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant vehemently submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 in MOV – 11 confiscating the goods as well as the conveyance is a non-speaking order.
civil application against order passed
COURT HELD
Considering the facts as recorded, held that court should not entertain this writ application against the final order passed by the Authority concerned in MOV-11 confiscating the goods and the conveyance. The entire evidence will have to be looked into which has come on record. In such circumstances, we relegate the writ applicant herein as well as the applicant of the Civil Application to prefer an appropriate appeal under Section 107 of the Act before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority shall not decline to entertain the appeals on the ground of limitation. Court say so because the writ applicant as well as the applicant of the Civil Application though fit to pursue the matter before the High Court. In such circumstances, the issue of delay should not come in their way so far as the Appeals are concerned.
civil application against order passed
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
With the aforesaid this writ application stands disposed. The Civil Application also stands disposed of. We clarify that we have otherwise not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The Appeals that may be filed shall be decided strictly on their own merits in accordance with law. Court clarify that even pending the Appeals, it shall be open for the writ applicant herein being the owner of the goods and the applicant of the Civil Application being the owner of the conveyance to prefer an appropriate application for the provisional release of the goods as well as the conveyance. It may happen that the Appellate Authority may take some time before it decides the appeals on merits and during that period, if the Appellate Authority deems fit, he may provisionally release the goods and the vehicle subject to certain terms and conditions.
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit: