GAIKWAD ENTERPRISES VS STATE OF GUJARAT

The petitioner, represented by Mr. Kumar Trivedi, and the respondent State, represented by Mr. Manan Mehta, engaged in a legal battle under Article 226 of the Constitution, contesting two orders. The first order, dated 23.11.2022 (GST MOU 06), was issued under section 129(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The second challenge pertained to the order dated 25.11.2022 (MOV 10) issued under section 130 of the Act, which resulted in the confiscation of the petitioner’s goods.

The case revolves around the petitioner’s transportation of metal scrap from Pune, Maharashtra, to Vijapur, Gujarat, in accordance with a purchase order. This transportation was executed using a conveyance truck.

The case revolves around two orders challenged by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution, represented by Mr. Kumar Trivedi, and defended by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manan Mehta for the respondent State.

The first order in question is dated 23.11.2022 (GST MOU 06), issued under section 129(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The second challenge pertains to an order dated 25.11.2022 (MOV 10) issued under section 130 of the Act, resulting in the confiscation of the petitioner’s goods.

The incident leading to these orders began when the petitioner transported metal scrap from Pune, Maharashtra, to Vijapur, Gujarat, via a truck with registration number MH-16-AY-9809, following a purchase order. During transit, the truck was intercepted by the mobile squad of respondent No.2, intending to seize both the goods and the conveyance. A notice dated 20.11.2022 was issued, culminating in the order dated 23.11.2022 under section 129 of the Act.

While the goods were seized under section 129, another order was passed under section 130 of the Act, confiscating the goods.

Section 129 of the Act deals with the detention, seizure, and release of goods and conveyance in transit. It outlines penalties for contravention of provisions, offering release options based on the owner’s actions regarding payment of penalties.

The petitioner, represented by Mr. Kumar Trivedi, and the respondent State, represented by Mr. Manan Mehta, were engaged in a legal battle revolving around two orders. The first order, dated 23.11.2022 (GST MOU 06), was issued under section 129(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The second order, dated 25.11.2022 (MOV 10), was issued under section 130 of the Act, resulting in the confiscation of the petitioner’s goods.

The case stemmed from an incident where the petitioner, in response to a purchase order, transported metal scrap goods from Pune, Maharashtra to Vijapur, Gujarat using a truck with registration number MH-16-AY-9809. During transit, the truck was intercepted by the mobile squad of respondent No.2, leading to the issuance of a notice dated 20.11.2022 and subsequently the order dated 23.11.2022 under section 129 of the Act.

Furthermore, another order was passed under section 130 of the Act, confiscating the goods while they were seized. Section 129 deals with the detention, seizure, and release of goods and conveyances in transit. It outlines penalties and procedures for contravention of the Act’s provisions during transportation of goods. Notably, it mandates the issuance of a notice within seven days of detention or seizure, and the subsequent passing of an order within seven days from the date of notice, providing an opportunity for the concerned person to be heard.

Section 130, on the other hand, deals with the confiscation of goods or conveyance and the levy of penalties. It outlines provisions for the confiscation of goods or conveyance if they are found to be in contravention of the Act, along with penalties to be imposed in such cases.

The legal dispute thus centered on the validity and legality of these orders, with arguments likely revolving around procedural compliance, adherence to statutory provisions, and the merits of the case regarding the alleged contravention of tax laws during the transportation of goods.

In a recent legal proceeding, Mr. Kumar Trivedi, the advocate representing the petitioner, and Mr. Manan Mehta, the Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondent State, presented arguments concerning two orders contested by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The first order, dated 23.11.2022 (GST MOU 06), was issued under section 129(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner challenged this order, alongside another order dated 25.11.2022 (MOV 10), passed under section 130 of the Act, which led to the confiscation of the petitioner’s goods.

The factual background of the case involves the petitioner transporting metal scrap from Pune, Maharashtra to Vijapur, Gujarat via a truck with registration number MH-16-AY-9809, in response to a purchase order. During transit, the truck was intercepted by the mobile squad of respondent No. 2, leading to the issuance of a notice on 20.11.2022 and subsequently the passing of the order dated 23.11.2022 under section 129 of the Act. Additionally, another order was passed under section 130 of the Act, confiscating the goods.

Section 129 of the Act addresses the detention, seizure, and release of goods and conveyances in transit. It outlines provisions for penalties and procedures to be followed in cases of contravention, including the detention or seizure of goods and conveyance and the subsequent release upon payment of penalties or furnishing of security. Furthermore, it specifies the timeline for issuing notices, passing orders, and the consequences of failure to comply with penalty payments.

Section 130 of the Act deals with the confiscation of goods or conveyances and the levy of penalties in cases of contravention of various provisions outlined in the Act. It grants officers the authority to confiscate goods or conveyances and levy fines, with provisions for the owner to pay fines in lieu of confiscation. Similar to section 129, it emphasizes the importance of providing an opportunity for the person involved to be heard before issuing orders for confiscation or imposition of penalties.

The legal arguments presented by both parties revolve around the interpretation and application of these sections, with Mr. Kumar Trivedi advocating for the petitioner’s rights and contesting the validity of the orders, while Mr. Manan Mehta defends the actions of the respondent State. Ultimately, the case hinges on the proper application of the relevant statutory provisions and the adherence to procedural fairness in the enforcement actions taken by the authorities.

Download PDF:
Gaikwad Enterprises

For Reference Visit:
Ahmedabad High Court

Read Another Case Law:
GST Case law