1. By this writapplication under Article226 of the Constitution of India, the writapplicants have prayed for the following reliefs:
9(a) be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents authorities to forthwith release the truck no.GJ01DZ 0598 along with the goods contained therein by quashing and setting aside the order of detention passed in FORM GST MOV06 by the Respondent No.1; and
(b) be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the notice issued for confiscation of the goods and the conveyance in FORM GST MOV10 by the respondent no.2; and
(c) pending notice, admission and final disposal of this petition, by way of adinterim and/or interim relief be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release the truck no.GJ01DZ0598 along with the goods contained therein detained in exercise of powers under Section 129 and 130 of the GST Acts; and
(d) pending notice, admission and final disposal of this petition, by way of adinterim and/or interim relief be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to continue with proceedings of confiscation under Section 130 of the GST Acts; and
(e) exparte adinterim relief in term of prayer 9(c) and Prayer 9(d) be granted; and
(f) for costs; and
(g) be pleased to grant such other and further relief/s as are deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.
2. We have heard Mr. Kuntal Parikh, the learned counsel appearing for the writapplicants and Mr. Trupesh Kathiria, the learned AGP appearing for the State respondents.
3. On 07/01/2021 this Court passed the following order:
1. We have heard Mr. Kuntal Parikh, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicants.
2. The principal argument of Mr. Parikh is that notice under Form MOV10 could not have been issued without any notice under Form MOV07. According to Mr. Parikh, the goods and the vehicle should be released on payment of the amount of tax and penalty. This amount comes to approximately ₹ 4.60 Lakh. The total value of the goods is around ₹ 19 Lakh.
3. Let Notice be issued to the respondents, returnable on 13 th January 2021. One copy of the entire paper book shall be furnished by end of the day today to Mr. Chintan Dave, the learned A.G.P. Appearing for the State respondent to enable him to take appropriate instructions in the matter. On the returnable date, post this matter on top of the Board.
4. Today, when the matter is taken up for further hearing, Mr. Parikh, the learned counsel appearing for the writapplicants has appraised us of a development that has taken place in the form of passing of the final order of confiscation under Section130 of the Act. Mr. Parikh would submit that since the final order of confiscation in the form of GST MOV11 has been passed, his clients would challenge the same by preferring the appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Act. However, he makes a request that atleast the goods and the vehicle may be ordered to be released on depositing of the amount towards the tax, penalty and fine in lieu of the confiscation. According to him, the total amount comes around ₹ 19 lac. He further clarifies that the amount of ₹ 2.30 lac towards the tax has already been deposited.
5. We are of the view that as we are relegating the writapplicants to avail an alternative remedy of preferring a statutory appeal against the final order of confiscation, the request for provisional release of the goods and the vehicle pending final disposal of the appeal also should made before the appellate authority. In this regard, we may say that the writapplicants may prefer an application under Section66(6) of the Act for the provisional release of the goods and the vehicle. If any such application is filed, then the appellate authority shall take it out for hearing and may consider releasing the goods and the vehicle on the writapplicants depositing the amount towards the penalty and fine in lieu of the confiscation. We may clarify that according to Mr. Parikh, the amount of towards the tax has already been deposited. If the writ applicants agreed to deposit the entire amount, then in such circumstances, the appellate authority shall provisionally release the goods and the vehicle pending the final disposal of the appeal.
6. With the above, this writapplication stands disposed of. We clarify that we have otherwise not expressed any opinion on the merits of the order of the confiscation. Even otherwise, the order of confiscation is not on record.