Virat Acier Pvt Ltd VS State Of Gujarat

In this legal scenario, the petitioner engaged in a series of transactions involving Scraped Stainless Steel. Initially, they procured the goods from M/s. Aman Enterprise, as evidenced by Invoice No. 03 dated 28.06.2022. Subsequently, the petitioner sold the acquired goods to M/s. Jindal Stainless Steel in Jajpur, Odisha. Following the completion of payment to M/s. Aman Enterprises, the petitioner issued Invoices No. 89 and 90 on the same day, 28.6.2022, in favor of M/s. Jindal Stainless Steel. The transportation of the Scraped Stainless Steel was entrusted to M/s. Manish Logistics, facilitated by bill of Lading No. 332 dated 28.6.2022, utilizing Lorry No. OR-04-N-1161, and an E-Way Bill No. 6114 3561 4562 was generated for the consignment.

However, amidst the transit process, a crucial juncture arose. On 29.06.2022, at 2:10 pm, Lorry No. OR-04-N-1161, laden with the aforementioned goods, was intercepted by respondent No. 3. This interception led to the recording of the driver’s statement in FORM GST MOV-01 and subsequent verification/inspection conducted in FORM GST MOV-02. The confiscated goods were appraised at a value of Rs. 36,16,500/-.

The petitioner in this case has raised a significant contention regarding the acquisition and transportation of the goods in question. They assert that the goods were lawfully purchased from M/s. Aman Enterprise and were merely being transported when intercepted and subsequently confiscated by the authorities. In essence, the petitioner argues that the authorities attempted to exercise their powers, purportedly derived from Section 129 of the GST Act, to override the petitioner’s rightful possession of the goods in transit. This argument hinges on the interpretation of Section 129 as an independent provision, distinct from Section 130, particularly emphasized due to the non-obstante clause with which Section 129 commences. According to the petitioner, the exercise of powers under Section 130, leading to the confiscation, was conducted without proper jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the petitioner raises a procedural concern regarding the swift succession of events leading to the impugned order. Notably, the order was issued without affording the petitioner an opportunity to respond or file a reply. This lack of due process raises questions about the fairness and legality of the actions taken by the authorities.

While a thorough examination of the petitioner’s argument is warranted, it is immediately apparent that procedural irregularities marred the issuance of the impugned order. The petitioner’s claims regarding the jurisdictional overreach and the denial of procedural fairness merit careful consideration and evaluation.

In the legal dispute at hand, the petitioner has brought forth a significant contention concerning the procurement and transportation of the goods under scrutiny. They assert that these goods were lawfully acquired from M/s. Aman Enterprise and were being rightfully transported when intercepted and subsequently confiscated by the authorities. Central to their argument is the assertion that the authorities attempted to exercise their powers, supposedly derived from Section 129 of the GST Act, to supersede the petitioner’s lawful possession of the goods in transit. This argument is rooted in the interpretation of Section 129 as an autonomous provision, separate from Section 130, a point accentuated by the non-obstante clause with which Section 129 commences. The petitioner contends that the execution of powers under Section 130, resulting in the confiscation, was carried out without proper jurisdiction.

Moreover, the petitioner raises a procedural red flag concerning the expeditious sequence of events leading to the contested order. Notably, the order was issued sans affording the petitioner an opportunity to respond or file a reply. This procedural oversight casts doubt on the fairness and legality of the actions taken by the authorities.

While a comprehensive examination of the petitioner’s argument is imperative, it is evident that procedural irregularities tainted the issuance of the challenged order. The petitioner’s assertions regarding jurisdictional overreach and the deprivation of procedural fairness warrant meticulous scrutiny and assessment.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: