MONTAGE ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT

Detention of goods alongwith vehicle – In the detention order, the said Officer has stated that the driver as well as the authorised person is not present. – It was submitted that the detention of the goods of the petitioner which were being transported duly in accordance with law and were accompanied by a valid invoice and e-way bill is without authority of law – HELD THAT:- Issue Notice returnable on 30th September, 2019.

No.- R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16555 of 2019

Dated.- September 27, 2019

MS HARSHA DEVANI AND MS SANGEETA K. VISHEN, JJ.

For The Petitioner (s) : MR UCHIT N SHETH (7336)

For The Respondent (s) : ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP (99)

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)

1. Mr. Uchit Sheth, learned advocate for the petitioner invited the attention of the court to the Form GST MOV-01 dated 31.7.2019 issued by the State Tax Officer, Mobile Squad, Division-1, Ahmedabad, to point out that the same is in the nature of the statement of the driver Kunvarsinh Baboosinh and all particulars of goods under movement have been tendered by him. It was pointed out that a week thereafter, on 6.8.2019, the second respondent has passed an order of detention under section 129(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and other Acts detaining the vehicle on two grounds, namely, that the genuineness of the goods in transit and/or tendered documents require verification; and that the driver as well as any other authorised persons are not present. It was submitted that when the Form GST MOV-01 specifically records the statement of the driver, it is difficult to comprehend as to how in the detention order, the said Officer has stated that the driver as well as the authorised person is not present. It was also submitted that while Form GST MOV-01 has been issued on 31.7.2019 and the vehicle as well as the goods have been unauthorisedly detained, the order of detention has been passed only on 6.8.2019. It was submitted that thereafter, a notice under section 130 of the CGST Act and other relevant provisions have been issued seeking to confiscate the goods in question on the very same grounds which are referred to in the order of detention and one more ground, namely that the place of recipient does not exist. It was submitted that the petitioner had, after the order of detention came to be passed, pointed out to the authority that the recipient does exist and that it was only because there was some misunderstanding and the recipient had not placed such order that the goods were sought to be returned. The attention of the court was also drawn to an order of seizure dated 28.8.2019 at the premises of the recipient, to submit that even the respondents are aware of the fact that the recipient does exist. It was submitted that, therefore, the detention of the goods of the petitioner which were being transported duly in accordance with law and were accompanied by a valid invoice and e-way bill is without authority of law.

2. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner, Issue Notice returnable on 30th September, 2019. To be listed at the top of the Board.

Direct service is permitted today.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *