Nikesh Rameshbhai Sarvaiya VS State Of Gujarat

The petitioner in this case had their goods and conveyance confiscated, and a penalty was imposed under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, as evidenced by MOV-10 and an order dated 19.01.2022 in FORM GST MOV-11. They sought relief, petitioning for the release of their goods and conveyance.

The petitioner’s request for interim relief specifically aimed at the release of the seized goods and conveyance under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Service Tax, 2017.

The situation arose from the petitioner, an unregistered dealer, engaging in transactions involving the purchase and sale of brass parts. Following an order for the supply of goods, the petitioner arranged for transportation from Jamnagar to Palanpur through a transporter to the buyer. During transit, however, their truck bearing registration No. HR-46-E-9778 was intercepted by authorities on the Chiloda Highway, leading to the confiscation of both the goods and the vehicle. Subsequently, the authorities issued notices and orders demanding tax, penalty, and fines.

In this legal case, the petitioner found themselves in a predicament when their goods and conveyance were seized, and a penalty was imposed under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. This action was supported by documents such as MOV-10 and an order dated 19.01.2022 in FORM GST MOV-11. Seeking remedy, the petitioner filed a petition for the release of their goods and conveyance.

Their petition sought interim relief with a specific focus on releasing the confiscated goods and conveyance under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Service Tax, 2017.

The circumstances leading to this legal battle involved the petitioner, an unregistered dealer, who was involved in transactions related to the purchase and sale of brass parts. Upon receiving an order for goods supply, the petitioner arranged transportation from Jamnagar to Palanpur via a transporter for their buyer. However, their truck, bearing registration No. HR-46-E-9778, was intercepted by authorities on the Chiloda Highway during transit. This interception resulted in the confiscation of both the goods and the vehicle. Subsequently, the authorities issued notices and orders demanding tax, penalty, and fines, escalating the legal dispute.

In this intricate legal saga, the petitioner found themselves ensnared in a complex web of legalities when their goods and conveyance were seized, accompanied by the imposition of a penalty under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. This punitive action was reinforced by the presentation of pertinent documents, including MOV-10 and an order dated 19.01.2022 in FORM GST MOV-11. Desperate for recourse, the petitioner took the proactive step of initiating a petition, fervently pleading for the liberation of their goods and conveyance.

The crux of the petitioner’s plea revolved around securing interim relief, with a laser-like focus on securing the release of the impounded goods and conveyance, as stipulated under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Service Tax, 2017.

The genesis of this legal conundrum traces back to the petitioner, an unregistered dealer entangled in the intricate dance of transactions pertaining to the procurement and sale of brass parts. Upon receipt of an order for the supply of goods, the petitioner orchestrated the logistics of transportation, orchestrating the movement of goods from the bustling city of Jamnagar to the quaint town of Palanpur, entrusting the task to a diligent transporter on behalf of their discerning buyer. However, the harmonious flow of commerce was abruptly disrupted when their truck, bearing the distinctive registration No. HR-46-E-9778, encountered a barricade of authority on the Chiloda Highway, halting its journey midway. This unforeseen interception culminated in the confiscation of both the precious cargo and the loyal steed that bore it. As the dust settled, the authorities wielded their bureaucratic might, issuing a barrage of notices and orders, demanding the settlement of taxes, penalties, and fines, thus catapulting the petitioner into the heart of a legal maelstrom.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: