It was submitted that in the absence of any discrepancy in the documents and the goods, it is not permissible for the respondents to confiscate either the vehicle or the goods.
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Raj Chamunda Roadlines
State of Gujarat
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20021 OF 2019
NOVEMBER 15, 2019
D.K. Puj for the Petitioner.
Ms. Harsha Devani, J. – Mr. Kavi Patel, learned advocate for Mr. D.K. Puj, learned advocate for the petitioner invited the attention of the court to Form GST-MOV-02 to submit that the vehicle in question together with the goods came to be detained by the respondent No.2 for the purpose of verification. By an order made in Form GST-MOV-03, the time for inspection came to be extended for a further period of three days. It was pointed out that accordingly physical verification of the goods came to be carried and Form GST-MOV-04 came to be issued wherein no discrepancy was found in respect of the goods in question. It was submitted that despite the aforesaid position, the respondents have proceeded under section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “CGST Act”) by issuing notice in Form GST-MOV-10 on the ground that after checking the dealers record according to the GST system, the dealer appears to be involved in bogus billing practice or making false claim of ITC for the period of August, 2019 and September, 2019. It was submitted that thereafter, on the same ground an order has been passed under section 130 of the CGST Act confiscating the goods and the vehicle in question.
2. It was submitted that in the absence of any discrepancy in the documents and the goods, it is not permissible for the respondents to confiscate either the vehicle or the goods.
3. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner, issue notice, returnable on 18th November, 2019.
4. Direct service is permitted, today.