Tanay Creation VS State of Gujarat

The petitioner has approached the Court requesting a writ of certiorari to challenge an order issued on September 15, 2021, by respondent No. 2 in Form GST MOV-11. The petitioner argues that the order was passed without serving a copy to the petitioner and without providing an opportunity for a hearing. This, the petitioner claims, is a blatant violation of the principles of natural justice and the provisions stipulated under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act.

The petitioner contends that the due process, as mandated by law, was not followed. Specifically, the petitioner was not notified of the order, nor was there any communication allowing for a hearing or response before the stay order was enacted. This lack of procedural fairness constitutes a breach of the principles of natural justice, which require that all parties affected by a legal decision have a fair opportunity to present their case.

Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that the respondent’s actions contravene Section 130 of the GST Act. This section outlines the legal framework and procedural requirements for the confiscation of goods or conveyances and the imposition of penalties in cases of violations under the GST law. By not adhering to these statutory requirements, the respondent’s order is rendered unlawful.

In light of these arguments, the petitioner seeks the intervention of the Court to annul the impugned order on the grounds of procedural impropriety and legal non-compliance. The petitioner emphasizes that upholding the principles of natural justice is fundamental to ensuring fairness and transparency in administrative actions, particularly in matters involving significant legal and financial implications under the GST framework.

The petitioner has approached the Court seeking a writ of certiorari to challenge the order in Form GST MOV-11 dated September 15, 2021, issued by respondent No. 2. The petitioner contends that the order was issued without providing them a copy or granting an opportunity for a hearing, thus violating the principles of natural justice and the provisions of Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act. The petitioner asserts that they have consistently paid GST on their outward supplies or under the reverse charge mechanism when applicable.

The petitioner further details that they dispatched goods under four tax invoices to processors in Jetpur as instructed by their buyers, using a truck (bearing No. GJ-01-JT-0689) operated by Kailash Translogistics Pvt. Ltd. On August 22, 2021, at 11:10 a.m., the truck was intercepted at the Kamrej Toll Plaza in Surat by respondent No. 3. The driver of the truck presented all necessary documents, including tax invoices, which described the goods, their value, and the applicable Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) rates.

Despite the driver providing all the required documentation, the interception and subsequent actions taken by the respondents, including the issuance of the order without proper procedure, form the basis of the petitioner’s challenge. They argue that these actions constitute a breach of legal and procedural norms, justifying their plea for the order’s annulment.

The petitioner has approached the Court seeking a writ of certiorari to challenge the order in Form GST MOV-11 dated 15.09.2021, issued by respondent No.2. The petitioner contends that this order was made without serving a copy to them or granting an opportunity for a hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the provisions of Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act.

The petitioner asserts that they have consistently paid GST on their outward supplies and under the reverse charge mechanism whenever applicable. The issue arose when the petitioner sent goods under four tax invoices to processors in Jetpur, following instructions from buyers. The goods were transported in a truck bearing registration number GJ-01-JT-0689 through Kailash Translogistics Pvt. Ltd. On 22.08.2021, the truck was intercepted by respondent No.3 at Kamrej Toll Plaza, Surat, at 11:10 a.m.

The petitioner claims that the driver had all necessary documents, including tax invoices detailing the description, value of the goods, and the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) applicable to the transaction. Despite this, the truck was detained due to alleged discrepancies: (1) a mismatch between the bill and the E-way bill, (2) the absence of the receiver’s name and full address in both the bill and the E-way bill, and (3) a quantity mismatch for E-way bill no. 221329079634 and the accompanying bills. It was alleged that the goods were being transported to an unknown recipient to evade tax. Consequently, respondent No.2 ordered a physical verification of the conveyance, goods, and documents in Form GST MOV-02.

On 23.08.2021, the petitioner sent a letter requesting the release of the intercepted goods and conveyance, and urged that no penalty be imposed. They explained that the goods were being sent to Jetpur for processing as per the buyers’ instructions. Despite this, the petitioner’s request was not honored, leading to the current legal challenge against the order for violating due process and natural justice principles.

The petitioner has approached the court to seek a writ of certiorari challenging an order dated September 15, 2021, issued in Form GST MOV-11 by respondent No. 2. The challenge is primarily based on the grounds that the order was passed without serving a copy to the petitioner and without providing an opportunity for a hearing, which constitutes a clear violation of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act. The petitioner asserts that they have been regularly paying GST on their outward supply or under the reverse charge mechanism whenever liable.

The petitioner contends that goods were dispatched under four tax invoices to processors in Jetpur, as per the buyers’ instructions, via a truck operated by Kailash Translogistics Pvt. Ltd. The truck, bearing registration number GJ-01-JT-0689, was intercepted by respondent No. 3 on August 22, 2021, at Kamrej Toll Plaza, Surat. The driver, at the time of interception, provided all required documents, including tax invoices that detailed the description, value of the goods, and the rate of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST).

The detention of the truck was justified by the respondents on three grounds: (1) there was a mismatch between the bill and the E-way bill, (2) the receiver’s name and full address were not mentioned in either the bill or the E-way bill, and (3) there was a quantity mismatch between the E-way bill no. 221329079634 and the bills produced. It was alleged that the goods were being transported to an unknown recipient to evade tax, prompting respondent No. 2 to direct a physical verification of the conveyance, goods, and documents in Form GST MOV-02.

On August 23, 2021, the petitioner sent a letter requesting the release of the goods and conveyance, urging not to impose any penalty. The petitioner clarified that the goods were sent to Jetpur for processing based on buyers’ instructions, but due to an inadvertent error, the name of the supplier from whom the petitioner had purchased the goods was mentioned as the consignee instead of the processors at Jetpur in the tax invoice. However, the E-way bill correctly indicated the place of delivery as Jetpur, Gujarat.

Despite the petitioner’s request, respondent No. 3 detained the truck and goods and issued a detention order in Form GST MOV-06 on August 24, 2021. The order was served to the truck driver, not the petitioner. Following this, an order under Section 129(1) of the GGST Act was also issued on the same day. Additionally, a notice for the confiscation of the goods and conveyance for the levy of a penalty was issued, further complicating the petitioner’s situation.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: