Kapil Hukmichand Kothari VS Union of India

The document you provided seems to be a legal proceeding involving a petition under Articles 226 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya, acting as an Assistant Government Pleader, waived the service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents 2 to 4.

With the consent of the advocates representing both parties, the matter was taken up for final disposal.

The petitioner, through the present petition, sought the following reliefs:

1. Quashing and setting aside the Order of Detention under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act in Form GST MOV-06 dated 28/04/2022, passed by Respondent No. 4.

2. Issuing a writ, direction, or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to quash and set aside the impugned FORM MOV-10 issued by Respondent No. 4 on 06.05.2022, and declaring it as non-maintainable for being passed without jurisdiction.

3. Declaring the Order of Detention dated 28/04/2022, passed by Respondent No. 4 under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act in Form GST MOV-06 as non-maintainable.

The petitioner is essentially challenging the legality and jurisdiction of the detention orders issued by Respondent No. 4 under the CGST Act. They seek relief through the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The document appears to be part of the initial stages of the legal process, where the respondent has waived service of notice, and both parties have agreed to proceed with final disposal.

The summary outlines a legal petition filed under Articles 226 and 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner seeks relief against an Order of Detention issued under Section 129(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act. The petition requests the following:

1. Quashing of the Order of Detention dated April 28, 2022, issued by Respondent No. 4 in Form GST MOV-06 (Annexure “A”).

2. Quashing of another order, Form GST MOV-10, issued by Respondent No. 4 on May 6, 2022, and declaring it as non-maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction.

3. Holding the Order of Detention as non-maintainable for being passed without jurisdiction.

4. Seeking a stay on the implementation and operation of the Order of Detention dated April 28, 2022.

5. Requesting a Writ of Prohibition or any appropriate writ to permanently prohibit Respondent No. 4 from proceeding further pursuant to Form GST MOV-10.

6. Directing Respondent No. 3 to release goods worth Rs. 1,08,60,957 of the Petitioner without payment of penalty.

7. Directing Respondent No. 3 to release the goods along with the conveyance without penalty.

8. Seeking a direction to Respondent No. 4 to refrain from further proceedings pursuant to the notice in Form MOV-10 pending hearing and final disposal of the petition.

The matter was brought for final disposal with the consent of both parties’ advocates, and the respondent’s assistant government pleader waived service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents 2 to 4.

The case under consideration revolves around a petition filed under Articles 226 and 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution by the petitioner, seeking various reliefs related to an order of detention under Section 129(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The petitioner, represented by Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya, aims to challenge the legality and jurisdiction of the detention order issued by Respondent No. 4.

The petitioner’s prayers include quashing the detention order (Form GST MOV-06), declaring it non-maintainable, and seeking a stay on its implementation. Additionally, the petitioner requests the release of goods worth Rs. 1,08,60,957 without penalty, along with the conveyance, and seeks a writ prohibiting Respondent No. 4 from further proceedings. They also seek any other relief deemed just and proper, along with costs.

In response, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, represented by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, appeared before the court and filed an affidavit-in-reply. The petitioner asserts their engagement in trading copper and copper scrap, duly registered under the CGST Act, regularly filing returns.

The petitioner alleges that Sahajanand Chem Industries, Gandhinagar, placed an order for copper scrap with them, with an amount totaling a significant sum. Subsequently, while transporting the goods from Gandhidham to Sahajanand Chem Industries, they were intercepted by the respondent authorities. Allegedly, the detention order was issued without jurisdiction and unlawfully.

During the hearing, both parties consented to final disposal of the matter. The petitioner’s contentions primarily revolve around challenging the validity of the detention order, arguing it was passed without jurisdiction. The respondent’s position, as outlined in their affidavit-in-reply, is crucial for understanding the government’s stance and legal arguments presented.

The petitioner’s plea raises fundamental questions regarding the exercise of statutory powers and adherence to due process under the CGST Act. The court’s decision will likely hinge on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, precedent, and the factual circumstances surrounding the detention of goods.

The case underscores the importance of procedural fairness and legal safeguards in administrative actions, particularly concerning tax enforcement measures. The outcome will not only affect the petitioner’s rights but also set precedents for similar cases involving the application of tax laws and executive powers.

As the matter progresses, the court will evaluate the arguments and evidence presented by both parties to arrive at a just and equitable resolution, ensuring the principles of justice and rule of law are upheld.

The case revolves around a petition filed under Articles 226 and 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution, seeking to quash an Order of Detention issued under Section 129(1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act. The petitioner, engaged in trading copper and copper scrap and registered under the CGST Act, alleges that goods worth Rs. 1,08,60,957/- being transported to a buyer were unlawfully detained by Respondent No. 4 during transit.

The petitioner asserts that the detention occurred despite compliance with relevant documentation requirements, including the presentation of invoices, E-way bill, and lorry receipts to the authorities. Nonetheless, Respondent No. 4 intercepted the conveyance and detained the goods, purportedly following procedures outlined in circulars issued by the Ministry of Finance.

The petitioner’s grievances include the alleged lack of jurisdiction in issuing the detention order and the subsequent Form GST MOV-06, along with concerns over the non-maintainability of certain documents issued by Respondent No. 4. Additionally, the petitioner seeks the release of the detained goods without penalty and requests prohibitory measures against further action by Respondent No. 4 pending the petition’s adjudication.

In response, Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, represented by a learned Assistant Government Pleader, have submitted an affidavit-in-reply. The matter is now before the court for final disposal, with both parties consenting to the process. The petitioner’s contentions revolve around procedural irregularities and alleged violations of statutory provisions, while Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are likely to defend the detention actions as per applicable laws and regulations.

The case underscores issues related to the exercise of authority under the CGST Act, particularly concerning the detention and release of goods in transit. It also highlights the legal recourse available to taxpayers aggrieved by administrative actions undertaken by tax authorities. The court’s decision will likely hinge on the interpretation of relevant provisions of the CGST Act, procedural compliance, and the principles of natural justice.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: