Chintankumar Karshanbhai Daraji VS State of Gujarat

In the matter before the court, the petitioner’s advocate, Mr. H.J. Trivedi, and the respondents’ advocate, Mr. Krutik Parikh, appeared before the bench. Mr. Trivedi, representing the petitioner, presented arguments primarily focused on the admission of the petition and/or seeking interim relief. He highlighted pertinent legal precedents and arguments supporting the petitioner’s case, emphasizing key aspects of the law applicable to the matter at hand.

On the other hand, Mr. Krutik Parikh, appearing as the learned Additional Government Pleader (AGP) for the respondents, countered the petitioner’s arguments. He addressed the court on behalf of the respondents, presenting their stance on the issues raised in the petition. Mr. Parikh provided legal justifications and factual context relevant to the respondent’s position, aiming to refute the grounds on which the petitioner sought relief.

Throughout the hearing, both advocates engaged in a substantive legal discourse, addressing the merits of the case and the applicability of interim relief. The arguments put forth by both sides were comprehensive, drawing upon statutory provisions, case law, and factual specifics essential to the adjudication of the matter.

The court, after hearing the submissions of both advocates, reserved its decision on the admission of the petition and/or the grant of interim relief, indicating that a detailed consideration of the arguments and applicable legal principles would be undertaken before rendering a judgment.

This summary encapsulates the essence of the proceedings involving Mr. H.J. Trivedi and Mr. Krutik Parikh before the court concerning the admission of the petition and the potential grant of interim relief.

In a recent legal proceeding, Mr. H.J. Trivedi, representing the petitioner, and Mr. Krutik Parikh, appearing as the learned AGP for the respondents, presented arguments for the admission of the petition and for consideration of interim relief.

The petitioner’s primary request is to invalidate the notice dated 11.04.2022 issued in FORM GST MOV-10 and the order dated 10.04.2022 in FORM GST MOV-6. These documents resulted in the confiscation and detention of the petitioner’s goods and conveyance.

Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner, represented by Mr. H.J. Trivedi, argued before the court seeking admission of the petition and interim relief. The main contention was to overturn the notice dated 11th April 2022 issued in FORM GST MOV-10 and the order dated 10th April 2022 in FORM GST MOV-6. These documents led to the confiscation and detention of the petitioner’s goods and conveyance.

The petitioner’s primary prayer was to set aside these actions. Additionally, interim relief was sought to suspend the enforcement of the order dated 21st April 2022 issued in FORM GST MOV-11 under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The matter was heard with Mr. H.J. Trivedi appearing as learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Krutik Parikh as learned AGP for the respondents, primarily for the admission of the petition and consideration of interim relief. The petitioner seeks the annulment of a notice dated 11.04.2022 in FORM GST MOV-10 and an order dated 10.04.2022 in FORM GST MOV-6, through which their goods and conveyance were confiscated and detained. Additionally, interim relief is requested to halt the enforcement of an order dated 21.04.2022 issued in FORM GST MOV-11 under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The factual background reveals that the petitioner was transporting copper scraps in accordance with buyer orders. During transit in truck registration No. GJ-05-AT-3042, the vehicle was intercepted by authorities, leading to the confiscation of both the goods and the vehicle. Subsequently, notices and orders were issued demanding taxes, penalties, fines, and other charges.

Would you like more details on any specific aspect of this summary?

In the matter before the court, Mr. H.J. Trivedi, representing the petitioner, and Mr. Krutik Parikh, the learned AGP for the respondents, appeared for the admission of the petition and consideration of interim relief. The petitioner seeks primarily to annul a notice dated 11.04.2022 in FORM GST MOV-10 and an order dated 10.04.2022 in FORM GST MOV-6. These documents resulted in the confiscation and detention of the petitioner’s goods and conveyance.

Additionally, the petitioner has requested interim relief to suspend the execution of an order dated 21.04.2022 issued in FORM GST MOV-11 under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The factual basis of the petition is that the petitioner was transporting copper scraps as per buyer’s instructions. During transit in truck No. GJ-05-AT-3042, authorities intercepted the vehicle and proceeded to confiscate both the goods and the conveyance. Subsequently, notices and orders demanding taxes, penalties, and fines were issued.

Central to this petition is the interpretation and application of Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act, 2017, concerning the powers exercised therein.

It was noted during proceedings that a similar issue was addressed in Special Civil Application No. 8353 of 2012, currently pending adjudication. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on 08.09.2022, alongside the present petition, to address these legal points comprehensively.

In a recent court proceeding, Mr. H.J. Trivedi, representing the petitioner, and Mr. Krutik Parikh, the learned AGP for the respondents, appeared before the court. The primary focus of the hearing was the admission of the petition and considerations for interim relief.

The petitioner’s main plea sought the annulment of a notice dated 11th April 2022 in FORM GST MOV-10 and an order dated 10th April 2022 in FORM GST MOV-6. These documents had led to the confiscation and detention of both the goods and the conveyance belonging to the petitioner.

Additionally, the petitioner requested interim relief to suspend the enforcement of an order dated 21st April 2022 issued in FORM GST MOV-11 under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The factual backdrop of the case involved the transportation of copper scraps by the petitioner, following orders from buyers. During transit in a truck registered as GJ-05-AT-3042, authorities intercepted the vehicle and subsequently confiscated both the goods and the vehicle. Subsequent notices were issued demanding taxes, penalties, and fines.

Central to the petition is the interpretation and application of Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the powers vested therein.

Regarding procedural matters, it was noted that a similar issue had been addressed in Special Civil Application No. 8353 of 2012, which is pending returnable on 8th September 2022 and will be heard concurrently with the present petition.

In terms of interim relief, the petitioner sought the release of their goods and vehicle under conditions similar to those imposed in the order dated 1st July 2022 in Special Civil Application No. 8353 of 2012.

The case underscores significant legal questions concerning tax enforcement and the rights of transporters under GST laws, necessitating a careful examination of statutory provisions and precedent.

Is there anything specific you would like to add or modify in this summary?

In a recent hearing, Mr. H.J. Trivedi, representing the petitioner, and Mr. Krutik Parikh, representing the respondents, appeared before the court. The petitioner sought relief from a notice dated 11.04.2022 in FORM GST MOV-10 and an order dated 10.04.2022 in FORM GST MOV-6, which resulted in the confiscation and detention of their goods and conveyance. Additionally, interim relief was requested to stay the implementation of an order dated 21.04.2022 in FORM GST MOV-11 under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The core issue involves the transportation of copper scraps by the petitioner, pursuant to buyer orders, which was intercepted en route in truck GJ-05-AT-3042. Subsequently, the goods and vehicle were confiscated, and notices demanding tax, penalty, and fines were issued. The petition hinges on interpreting and applying Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act concerning the powers exercised by authorities in such cases.

Notably, a related case, Special Civil Application No. 8353 of 2012, has been subjected to a similar rule returnable on 08.09.2022, and the current petition is set to be heard alongside it. Regarding interim relief, akin to the conditions imposed in the aforementioned 2012 case, the petitioner seeks the release of their goods and vehicle.

The impugned order details penalties totaling Rs. 2,14,690/-, fines amounting to Rs. 11,92,726/-, and demanded tax of Rs. 2,14,690/-.

As interim relief, the court directed the respondents to release the confiscated goods and conveyance upon the petitioner meeting certain conditions:

Depositing Rs. 2,14,690/- towards tax.

Paying Rs. 2,14,690/- as penalty.

Furnishing a bond worth Rs. 11,92,726/- for the fine.

Upon compliance with these conditions, the authorities are instructed to release the goods and conveyance to the petitioner.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: