Kwality Steelage Pvt Ltd VS Union of India

In the matter of the petition, Heard learned advocate Mr. Maulik Vakhariya represented the petitioner, and learned AGP Mr. Krutik Parikh represented the respondent State with regard to interim relief. The case’s main issues were outlined when the court issued a Rule on 6th July 2022.

The core of the petition challenges an order dated 31st May 2022 issued by the State Tax Officer (2) Bhilad Mobile Squad, Division-8, Vapi. This order is purportedly issued under the authority granted by Section 130 of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, 2017.

In a recent legal matter, Mr. Maulik Vakhariya, representing the petitioner, and Mr. Krutik Parikh, representing the respondent State, presented their arguments regarding interim relief. The case originated from an order issued on May 31, 2022, by the State Tax Officer (2) Bhilad Mobile Squad, Division-8, Vapi, under Section 130 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This order involved the confiscation of goods in transit, with a total demand of Rs. 93,34,360/- along with penalties and fines.

The petitioner challenged this order, contending that the authority should have invoked Section 129, which specifically deals with goods in transit, rather than Section 130, which is assessee-specific. Mr. Vakhariya argued that the authority exceeded its jurisdiction by invoking Section 130 instead of Section 129.

The crux of the matter lies in determining whether, when goods are in transit, the authorities are entitled to utilize Section 129 or if they must restrict themselves to Section 130. Mr. Vakhariya highlighted that Section 129, beginning with a non-obstante clause, is a goods-specific provision, while Section 130 pertains to the assessee.

Although an appeal is available under Section 107 of the Act against the impugned order, Mr. Vakhariya asserted that if it is established that the authority should have exercised powers under Section 129 instead of Section 130, it would raise a jurisdictional issue. Therefore, the petitioner’s argument hinges on whether the authority acted within its jurisdiction in confiscating the goods under Section 130 rather than Section 129.

Mr. Maulik Vakhariya, representing the petitioner, and Mr. Krutik Parikh, representing the respondent State, presented arguments regarding interim relief in a legal matter. The case involved a challenge to an order passed by the State Tax Officer under Section 130 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, confiscating goods in transit and imposing penalties.

Mr. Vakhariya argued that the authority’s exercise of powers under Section 130 was without legal basis, contending that when goods are in transit, Section 129 should apply, not Section 130. He emphasized that Section 129 is a goods-specific provision, while Section 130 is assessee-specific, raising a jurisdictional issue.

He also referenced a previous case where interim relief was granted to release goods under similar circumstances, suggesting that similar relief should be granted in this case.

Mr. Parikh did not dispute the previous order granting interim relief in a similar case.

The petitioner sought interim relief to stay the implementation of the confiscation order and demanded the release of goods and conveyance upon certain conditions. While a blanket stay was not requested, they sought relief regarding the release of goods and conveyance.

The impugned order demanded a penalty of Rs. 12,35,430, along with fines and taxes totaling Rs. 81,98,930.

The court directed the respondents to release the goods and conveyance, subject to conditions not detailed in this summary.

In a recent legal proceeding, an advocate named Mr. Maulik Vakhariya represented the petitioner, while Mr. Krutik Parikh, the learned Assistant Government Pleader (AGP), represented the respondent State. The matter pertained to an order issued by the State Tax Officer on May 31, 2022, under Section 130 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which confiscated goods in transit, resulting in a total demand of Rs. 93,34,360/-, inclusive of penalties and fines.

The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that the authority had wrongly exercised powers under Section 130 instead of Section 129, which is specific to goods in transit. The petitioner contended that Section 129 should have been invoked, raising a jurisdictional issue. Notably, Section 129 deals with goods-specific provisions, while Section 130 is assessee-specific.

The petitioner cited a precedent where similar interim relief was granted in a previous case (Special Civil Application No. 8353 of 2012) involving a similar controversy. The petitioner expressed readiness to comply with conditions similar to those imposed in the aforementioned case.

The AGP did not contest the interim relief granted in the 2012 case.

Regarding the current petition, the petitioner sought interim relief to stay the implementation of the confiscation order dated May 31, 2022, concerning goods and conveyance, while being willing to comply with certain conditions.

The impugned order demanded a penalty of Rs. 12,35,430/-, along with fines and taxes totaling Rs. 81,98,930/-.

The court, in granting interim relief, directed the release of the petitioner’s goods and conveyance, subject to conditions: depositing the tax and penalty amounts and furnishing a bond for the fine. Upon fulfilling these conditions, the authorities were instructed to release the goods and conveyance.

This order of interim relief was made part of the main matter, and the civil application was allowed and disposed of accordingly, with directions for service to respondents no. 3 and 4.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:                                      

GST Case law: