Case tittle | Virani Tradelink VS State of Gujarat |
Court | Gujarat High Court |
Honourable Judge | Justice N.V.Anjaria Justice Bhargav D. Karia |
Citation | 2022 (09) GSTPanacea 696 HC Gujarat R/SCA No. 13083 of 2022 |
Judgment Date | 21-September-2022 |
During the hearing, Mr. Anandodaya S. Mishra, the learned advocate representing the petitioner, and Mr. Krutik Parikh, the learned Additional Government Pleader (AGP) representing the respondents, appeared before the court. The primary focus of the hearing was on the admission of the petition and/or the grant of interim relief. Mr. Mishra, on behalf of the petitioner, argued passionately for the merits of the petition, emphasizing key legal points and precedents supporting their case. He highlighted the urgency and necessity of interim relief to protect the petitioner’s rights pending a final decision on the matter.
In response, Mr. Krutik Parikh, appearing for the respondents, presented counter-arguments addressing the legal grounds raised by Mr. Mishra. He contested the petitioner’s claims, presenting statutory and factual rebuttals to justify the respondent’s position. Mr. Parikh also addressed the issue of interim relief, arguing for its denial or limitation based on the respondent’s understanding of the case law and the specific circumstances involved.
Throughout the proceedings, both advocates demonstrated a thorough understanding of the legal complexities involved in the case, presenting their arguments succinctly and effectively to persuade the court on the matter of admission of the petition and the necessity for interim relief. The hearing concluded with the court reserving its decision on these crucial aspects, awaiting further submissions and deliberations before reaching a final determination.
In a recent hearing, the petitioner was represented by the skilled advocate Mr. Anandodaya S. Mishra, while Mr. Krutik Parikh, the learned Additional Government Pleader (AGP), appeared on behalf of the respondents. The primary focus of the proceedings was the admission of the petition and the potential grant of interim relief.
The petitioner’s central plea revolves around challenging two specific orders: one dated 27th May 2022 issued in FORM GST MOV-11, and another dated 8th May 2022 issued in FORM GST MOV-6. These orders resulted in the confiscation and detention of the petitioner’s goods and conveyance.
Mr. Anandodaya S. Mishra, advocating for the petitioner, argued passionately for the nullification of these orders. He emphasized various legal grounds, including procedural irregularities and substantive errors, that allegedly tainted the issuance and implementation of the said orders. His submissions underscored the adverse impact of the orders on the petitioner’s business operations and legal rights.
In response, Mr. Krutik Parikh, representing the respondents, countered by defending the validity and necessity of the impugned orders. He presented the government’s perspective, asserting compliance with statutory provisions and justifying the actions taken against the petitioner under relevant GST laws. Mr. Parikh highlighted the public interest aspects and the need for regulatory enforcement to maintain fiscal discipline and prevent potential revenue loss.
The proceedings concluded with the court reserving judgment on the admission of the petition and the interim relief sought by the petitioner. The arguments presented by both advocates highlighted complex legal issues surrounding taxation and administrative law, setting the stage for further judicial deliberations on the merits of the case.
This summary encapsulates the essence of the legal arguments and positions advanced during the hearing, reflecting the contentious nature of the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents regarding the contested orders and their implications under GST regulations.
Mr. Anandodaya S. Mishra, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. Krutik Parikh, the learned Additional Government Pleader (AGP) representing the respondents, engaged in arguments before the court concerning the admission of the petition and the plea for interim relief.
The petitioner’s primary contention, presented by Mr. Mishra, revolves around challenging two specific orders: firstly, the order dated 27th May 2022 issued in FORM GST MOV-11, and secondly, the order dated 8th May 2022 issued in FORM GST MOV-6. These orders resulted in the confiscation and detention of the petitioner’s goods and conveyance.
In support of the petition, Mr. Mishra emphasized the illegality and procedural irregularities allegedly associated with these orders, arguing for their reversal or annulment. Additionally, the petitioner sought urgent interim relief to suspend the operation of these orders pending the final adjudication of the matter.
Responding on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Parikh, learned AGP, countered these assertions, arguing the validity and propriety of the contested orders. He highlighted the statutory basis and procedural correctness underpinning the actions taken by the respondents, opposing the grant of interim relief sought by the petitioner.
In conclusion, the arguments put forth by both parties centered on the legality of the impugned orders and the urgency of interim relief pending further judicial review. The court, after hearing the submissions, will consider whether to admit the petition and decide on the request for interim relief accordingly.
In the matter before the court, Mr. Anandodaya S. Mishra, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned AGP representing the respondents, presented arguments concerning the admission of the petition and the grant of interim relief. The petitioner seeks primarily to overturn two orders: firstly, the order dated 27th May 2022 issued in FORM GST MOV-11, and secondly, the order dated 8th May 2022 in FORM GST MOV-6. These orders resulted in the confiscation and detention of the petitioner’s goods and conveyance.
Specifically, the petitioner urges the court to set aside the aforementioned orders. Additionally, by way of interim relief, the petitioner requests a stay on the operation and enforcement of the order dated 27th May 2022 issued in FORM GST MOV-11 under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This interim relief is sought pending the final adjudication of the petition.
The arguments presented by both parties centered on the legality and procedural compliance of the confiscation and detention orders under the GST Act. Mr. Anandodaya S. Mishra, on behalf of the petitioner, emphasized procedural irregularities and potential violations of statutory provisions in the issuance and implementation of the orders. Conversely, Mr. Krutik Parikh, representing the respondents, defended the legality of the orders and highlighted the substantive grounds justifying the actions taken by the respondents.
The court, upon considering the arguments presented by both sides, will now deliberate on the admissibility of the petition and the necessity for granting interim relief pending a final decision on the merits of the case.
In the matter before the court, Mr. Anandodaya S. Mishra, learned advocate representing the petitioner, and Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned AGP appearing for the respondents, presented arguments primarily concerning the admission of the petition and the grant of interim relief.
The petitioner’s main grievance revolves around challenging two specific orders: firstly, the order dated 27th May 2022 issued in FORM GST MOV-11, and secondly, the order dated 8th May 2022 in FORM GST MOV-6. These orders resulted in the confiscation and detention of the petitioner’s goods and conveyance.
To address these issues, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:
1. Setting aside the aforementioned orders.
2. Seeking interim relief to stay the operation and implementation of the 27th May 2022 order passed in FORM GST MOV-11 under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The factual background of the case reveals that the petitioner, based on an order for the supply of copper scrap, transported the goods through a transporter to the buyer. During transit in a truck bearing registration No. GJ-10-TX-0338, the vehicle was intercepted by the respondent authorities. Subsequently, the goods and the vehicle were confiscated, and consequential orders demanding tax, penalty, and fines were issued.
The arguments put forth by both counsels during the hearing focused on the legality and procedural correctness of the confiscation orders, emphasizing the necessity of interim relief to prevent irreparable harm pending the final adjudication of the petition.
Overall, the case involves complex issues concerning customs and GST regulations, highlighting disputes over enforcement actions and the rights of parties involved in the transport and delivery of goods under statutory frameworks.
Mr. Anandodaya S. Mishra appeared on behalf of the petitioner, seeking admission of the petition and/or interim relief. The primary request of the petitioner is to overturn two specific orders: one dated May 27, 2022, issued in FORM GST MOV-11, and another dated May 8, 2022, issued in FORM GST MOV-6. These orders resulted in the confiscation and detention of the petitioner’s goods and conveyance.
Additionally, the petitioner has requested interim relief to suspend the enforcement of the May 27, 2022 order under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The incident leading to this petition occurred during the transportation of copper scrap by the petitioner via a transporter to the buyer. While en route in a truck registered as GJ-10-TX-0338, authorities intercepted the vehicle and subsequently confiscated both the goods and the vehicle. Subsequently, demands for taxes, penalties, and fines were issued.
The central issue in this petition revolves around the interpretation and application of Sections 129 and 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the extent of powers exercisable under these provisions.
It was noted during the proceedings that a similar point of law has been addressed in Special Civil Application No. 8353 of 2012, which is scheduled for a returnable date of September 29, 2022. The current petition is set to be heard concurrently with this case.
This summary encapsulates the key points and legal arguments presented by both parties in the context of the petitioner’s plea for relief from the adverse orders and the underlying legal issues concerning GST provisions and enforcement actions.
Heard, Mr. Anandodaya S. Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Krutik Parikh, learned AGP for the respondents, regarding the admission of the petition and/or for the grant of interim relief.
1. The petitioner seeks to set aside two orders: one dated 27th May 2022 in FORM GST MOV-11 and another dated 8th May 2022 in FORM GST MOV-6. These orders resulted in the confiscation and detention of the petitioner’s goods and conveyance.
2. Additionally, the petitioner has requested interim relief to stay the operation of the order dated 27th May 2022 passed in FORM GST MOV-11 under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
3. The background of the case involves the transportation of copper scrap by the petitioner to the buyer via a transporter. During transit in a truck with registration No. GJ-10-TX-0338, the vehicle was intercepted by respondent authorities, leading to the confiscation of both the goods and the vehicle. Subsequently, orders were issued demanding tax, penalty, and fines.
4. The central issue in this petition revolves around the interpretation and application of Sections 129 and 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the extent of powers exercisable under these provisions.
5. It was noted during proceedings that a similar issue has been addressed in Special Civil Application No. 8353 of 2012, currently pending returnable on 29th September 2022, which will be heard alongside the present petition.
6. With regard to the petitioner’s prayer for interim relief seeking the release of the goods and vehicle, it is argued that similar conditions as imposed in previous orders should apply.
This summary captures the essential points discussed during the hearing, focusing on the petitioner’s challenge to the confiscation orders and the application for interim relief pending further legal proceedings.
In the matter before the court, Advocate Mr. Anandodaya S. Mishra, appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. Krutik Parikh, representing the respondents, presented arguments concerning the admission of the petition and the grant of interim relief. The petitioner seeks to challenge two specific orders: one dated 27th May 2022 in FORM GST MOV-11 and another dated 8th May 2022 in FORM GST MOV-6. These orders resulted in the confiscation and detention of the petitioner’s goods and conveyance.
The petitioner’s primary prayer is to set aside these orders. Additionally, as interim relief, the petitioner requests a stay on the implementation of the 27th May 2022 order under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).
The factual background involves the transportation of copper scrap by the petitioner to a buyer via a transporter. During transit in a truck registered as GJ-10-TX-0338, authorities intercepted the vehicle and confiscated both the goods and the vehicle. Subsequently, tax demands, penalties, and fines were issued against the petitioner.
At the heart of the legal issue is the interpretation and application of Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act, and the scope of powers exercisable under these provisions.
It was noted that a similar issue was addressed in Special Civil Application No. 8353 of 2012, currently scheduled for a returnable date of 29th September 2022, which will be heard together with the present petition.
Regarding interim relief, the petitioner seeks release of the goods and vehicle under conditions similar to those imposed in a previous order dated 1st July 2022 in the aforementioned Special Civil Application No. 8353 of 2012.
The impugned order specifies penalties totaling Rs. 13,27,052/-, fines amounting to Rs. 73,72,512/-, and a tax demand of Rs. 13,27,052/-.
The court directed interim relief by ordering the release of the confiscated goods and conveyance upon fulfillment of certain conditions by the petitioner:
1. Deposit of Rs. 13,27,052/- towards tax.
2. Deposit of Rs. 13,27,052/- as penalty.
3. Furnishing a bond worth Rs. 73,72,512/- towards the fine.
Upon compliance with these conditions, the authorities are instructed to release the goods and conveyance to the petitioner.
This case involves complex legal questions surrounding the confiscation of goods under GST laws, and the court’s decision will hinge on the interpretation of statutory provisions and precedents in similar matters.
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit:
Read Another Case Law:
GST Case law: