Page 209 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

2020 ] HARI OM COMPANY v. STATE OF GUJARAT 191

2. The writ applicant is a sole proprietor of a proprietary firm running
in the name of Mr. Manoj Kumar Kudathil Kunil. The proprietary firm is en-
gaged in the business of araca nut, spices, etc. It appears from the materials on
record that a consignment of araca nut was transported from Kerala so as to
reach to Ahmedabad. While the goods were in transit, on 7-3-2020 in the Vehicle
No. GJ-25-U-8721, the same came to be intercepted by the mobile squad of the
GST at the Jambusar Padra Road, Vadodara. It appears that at the time of seizure
and thereafter upon further inquiry many discrepancies were noticed by the au-
thority as regards the documents etc.
3. We need not go further into the facts as this writ application can be
disposed of on a short ground.
4. It appears that initially at the time of detention, an order under Sec-
tion 129 of the Central/Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, the
Act) came to be passed determining the amount of tax and penalty to be paid by
the writ applicant. Simultaneously, a notice was issued under Section 130 of the
Act calling upon the writ applicant to show cause as to why the goods and con-
veyance should not be confiscated. Thereafter a final order came to be passed of
confiscation of the goods and vehicle under Section 130 of the Act. As the final
order of confiscation was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to
the writ applicant, the same came to be quashed by this Court and the matter
was remanded to the authority to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity
of hearing to the writ applicant.
5. The matter as on date is at the stage of passing appropriate order
under Section 130 of the Act. In other words, the adjudication of the confiscation
proceedings is going on.
6. Mr. Varis V. Isani, the Learned Counsel appearing for the writ appli-
cant, vehemently submitted that the detention and seizure itself was illegal as the
driver of the conveyance had with him all valid documents including the E-Way
bill. Mr. Isani would submit that there is nothing on record to indicate that the
writ applicant committed breach of any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules.
He would submit that the goods and the conveyance came to be detained way
back in the month of March, 2020 and continues to be under detention as on date.
He prays that the detention order dated 12-2-2020 in the Form GST MOV-6 and
the confiscation notice dated 12-3-2020 in the Form GST MOV-10 may be
quashed and set aside and the goods and the conveyance may be ordered to be
released.
7. On the other hand, this writ application has been vehemently op-
posed by Ms. Manisha L. Shah, the Learned Government Pleader appearing for
the State respondents. Ms. Shah submits that various irregularities were noticed
by the authorities concerned at the time of seizure and detention of the goods
and the conveyance. Ms. Shah would further submit that further inquiry in the
matter revealed the following :
“Prima facie, the documents tendered were found to be defective.
The genuineness of the goods in transit (its quality etc.) and/or tendered
documents requires further verification.
E-Way bill not tendered for the goods in moment.
Others (specify)

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  209