Veer Enterprises, a sole proprietorship firm and working for gain having v. The Union of India through Finance Secretary, Ministry of Finance

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Mr. Pranit Bag, Advocate [through V.C.] Mr. Ghanshyam Jha, Advocate [through V.C.] Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate Mr. Ankit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI Mr. Amit Kumar, Sr. SC CGST Mr. Ashish Shekhar, Advocate Through Hybrid Mode 03rd April 2024 By the Court: This writ petition challenges the order passed in Form GST MOV-11 dated 15th November 2023 passed under section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short, CGST) and seeks release of the confiscated goods and the conveyance bearing No. HR 55 W 7139 to the petitioner-Firm.

2. The petitioner-Firm has pleaded that it is a sole proprietary Firm which deals in purchase and sale of Betel nuts and dried Areca nuts. This is the case set up by the petitioner-Firm that in course of business it sold 17,780 kg of dried Areca nuts, the total value of which was Rs. 28,37,688/-. According to the petitioner-Firm, the purchaser is M/s Patil Trading Company which has registration under GST vide GSTIN- 07HGAPP5383L1ZS. The petitioner-Firm has produced copies of tax invoice and E-Way bill generated on 1st November 2023 and E-Way bill was uploaded on GST portal reflecting the names of the petitioner-Firm and M/s Patil Trading Company. On 2nd November 2023 the vehicle carrying the goods was detained at Barhi at 10:00 PM and the respondent-Authority did not release the vehicle even though the driver produced E-Way bill and invoices with the consignment note. A notice dated 8th November 2023 in Form GST MOV-10 was issued and a response was submitted by the petitioner-Firm sent through Email on 14th November 2023. However, an order was passed on 15th November 2023 in Form GST MOV-11 under section 130 of the CGST.

3. The proceedings in the present writ petition disclose that the main argument raised on behalf of the petitioner-Firm is that on producing the necessary documents by the driver or any other authorized person would satisfy the requirements under section 129 of the CGST and the goods and the vehicle shall be released on payment of the applicable tax and penalty equal to two hundred percent of the tax payable on such goods and, in case of exempted goods, on payment of an amount equal to two percent of the value of goods or twenty five thousand rupees whichever is less, where the owner of the goods come forward for payment of such tax and penalty.

4. Mr. Pranit Bag, the learned counsel for the petitioner-Firm submits that the proceedings under section 129 of the CGST cannot be automatically converted in a proceeding for confiscation of the goods as provided under section 130 of the CGST and for that reason the order dated 15th November 2023 in Form GST MOV-11 is bad in law. Though we do not find any substance in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner- Firm, we are inclined to dismiss this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner-Firm did not avail of the interim order dated 9th February 2024. There is no application for extension of time or modification in the order 9th February 2024 to the extent that the petitioner-Firm may be permitted to furnish bond for Rs. 27,02,560/- and other taxes and penalty instead of bank guarantee. This is also relevant to indicate that the petitioner-Firm was 2 WP(T) No. 6746 of 2023 required to avail the opportunity for release of confiscated goods by depositing the amount of tax, penalty, fine etc. within a reasonable time but even on expiry of about one and a half month it did not avail of the said opportunity. As it would appear from the order dated 14th March 2024, Mr. Amit Kumar, the learned senior Standing Counsel for CGST had informed the Court that the petitioner-Firm did not avail of the opportunity granted to it vide order dated 9th February 2024. Notwithstanding that, any application seeking extension of time or modification in the order dated 9th February 2024 was not filed. However, Mr. Pranit Bag, the learned counsel for the petitioner-Firm made oral request for modifying the condition of furnishing bank guarantee by permitting the petitioner-Firm to submit bond for the total value of the confiscated goods.

5. This is well settled that the writ Court exercises its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in furtherance of public good. The powers under Article 226 of the Constitution though is plenary in nature but its exercise is discretionary. Therefore, the writ Court is duty bound to take all relevant facts into consideration to satisfy its judicial conscience whether relief can be granted to the aggrieved party. Now in a situation like the present one which discloses serious disputed questions of fact as to nature of purchase and sale of the confiscated goods, and the finding of the statutory authority that the recipient is the non-existent Firm, the writ Court shall not exercise its discretionary powers to entertain this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.

7. Interim order dated 9th February 2024 is recalled. I.A. No. 2827 of 2024 has been rendered infructuous. (Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) Tanuj 3 WP(T) No. 6746 of 2023