Active Metals (P.) Ltd. VS State of Gujarat

The writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks various reliefs concerning the quashing of a detention order and the release of goods-in-transit. The applicant, a private limited company based in Jamnagar, Gujarat, is involved in manufacturing and supplying items falling under Chapter-74 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, including Brass Bars, Brass Sections, and Brass Scrap.

The applicant is registered under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, and had placed an order for brass scrap from a supplier named M/s. Nexus Enterprises, registered in Maharashtra. As per the contract, the supplier was supposed to transport the goods to the applicant’s premises in Gujarat. However, during transit, the goods were detained by the authorities based on a purported violation of tax laws.

In response, the applicant filed the writ application seeking relief from the detention order and the release of the goods, along with the truck transporting them. The application requests the court to issue a writ of Mandamus or Certiorari, or any appropriate writ, to quash the detention order and secure the immediate release of the goods and the truck.

The applicant also requests the court to direct the concerned authority to release the goods-in-transit and stay further proceedings until the matter is fully heard. Additionally, the application seeks ex-parte interim relief pending the court’s decision. The applicant emphasizes the urgency of the matter and requests the court to render justice as it deems fit in the circumstances.

The case presents a dispute arising from the detention of goods during transit due to alleged non-compliance with tax regulations, with the applicant seeking judicial intervention to secure the release of the detained goods and truck.

The case presented through this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks several reliefs. The writ applicant, a private limited company engaged in the manufacture and supply of brass products, primarily seeks to quash a detention order issued on December 24, 2021, regarding goods-in-transit along with a specific truck, and to secure the immediate release of these goods.

The applicant company, registered under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, had entered into a procurement contract with a supplier named M/s. Nexus Enterprises. The goods were to be transported from Maharashtra to Jamnagar, Gujarat. However, during transit, the vehicle carrying the goods was intercepted by respondent No. 4 between Palsana and Kadodara on December 21, 2021. Subsequently, various forms were filed, including a statement from the driver, and orders for physical verification of the goods and documents were issued.

Despite verification indicating conformity between the goods in transit and the accompanying documents, including invoices and E-way bills, the respondent No. 4 has yet to release the vehicle and goods. Consequently, the applicant has petitioned the court seeking relief.

The key points of contention revolve around the respondent’s refusal to release the goods despite no apparent discrepancies found during the verification process. The applicant argues for the immediate release of the goods and the quashing of the detention order. The application also seeks interim relief pending further legal proceedings. Overall, the case hinges on ensuring the timely and lawful release of the goods in transit.

The writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks several reliefs, including quashing a detention order issued in FORM GST MOV-06 dated 24.12.2021 and immediate release of goods-in-transit along with a specific truck. The applicant, a private limited company, is engaged in manufacturing and supplying brass products. They had ordered brass scrap from a supplier in Maharashtra to be delivered to Jamnagar, Gujarat.

During transit, the vehicle carrying the goods was intercepted by respondent No.4 between Palsana and Kadodara on 21.12.2021. The driver’s statement was recorded, and a physical verification was ordered due to apparent document defects. Despite the physical verification report (FORM GST MOV-04) confirming compliance with documents, respondent No.4 didn’t release the vehicle and goods.

Mr. Anand Nainawati, representing the applicant, argued that since no discrepancies were found during physical verification, respondent No.4’s subsequent detention order (FORM GST MOV-06) was unwarranted, especially without issuing a notice under Section 129(3) of the Act, 2017. He highlighted the applicant’s increasing demurrage costs due to the detention.

On the contrary, Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, representing the respondents, contended that further notices under Section 130 of the Act are being considered.

The applicant seeks immediate relief from the court, citing financial losses and absence of legal grounds for detention. The case hinges on whether the respondent’s actions were lawful and whether proper procedures were followed.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:                                      

GST Case law: