Point of Law:
Entire proceedings under Section 129 of CGST are envisaged to be completed within 14 days whereas limitation for filing appeal under Section 107 of CGST is there months and after further inquiry as may be necessary, the appeal is to be decided within a period of one year.

ORDER :

J.B.Pardiwala, J.

1. By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):

“15(A) To issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing to quash and set aside an order of Confiscation of Goods and Conveyance and demand of tax, fine and penalty issued under Form GST MOV-11 dated 21.10.2019 by respondent no.3 at Annexure-J.

(B) To issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing to quash and set aside an order of detention of Goods and Conveyance in Form GST MOV-06 dated 06.09.2019 by respondent no.3 at Annexure-H.

(C) To issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to release the seized goods along with conveyance under Section 129(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 on such terms and conditions which may be deemed fit and proper to this Hon'ble Court and in the interest of the petitioner.

(D) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, to direct the respondents to release the seized goods along with conveyance provisionally under Section 129(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

(E) To pass any other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper.

(G) To provide for the costs of this petition.”

2. The writ-applicant seeks to challenge the action of the respondents in declining to release the goods detained and seized under Section 129(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short the “Act”).

3. The writ-applicant claims to be having GSTIN/Uni: 24AWWPT7235Q1ZB. The writ-applicant is engaged in the business of Arecanut and other agriculture and non-agriculture commodities.

4. It is the case of the writ-applicant that he purchased a consignment of Arecanut worth Rs.68,00,000/- from a firm running in the name of Jaipuria Traders situated at Delhi. The details as regards the GST Registration etc. of the Jaipuria Traders have been furnished in Paragraph No.4 of the memo of the writ-application.

5. According to the writ applicant, Jaipuria Traders transported the goods in a vehicle for being delivered at the place of the writ-applicant. The details of the goods and the requisite documents have been stated in the writ application as under:

6. While the goods were in transit, the GST authorities intercepted the vehicle, detained the same and the goods were accordingly seized along with the conveyance. It is also the case of the writ-applicant that the driver of the conveyance had produced all the relevant documents relating to the goods and there was no contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules. It appears that the respondent no.3 issued a notice for confiscation of the goods, conveyance and levied of penalty under Section 130 of the Act.

7. We also take notice of the fact that the final order has been passed in FORM GST MOV-11, which is an order of confiscation of goods and conveyance and demand of tax, fine and penalty dated 21.10.2019.

8. Being dissatisfied with the order of confiscation passed by the respondent no.3 in FORM GST MOV-11, the writ-applicant is before this Court with the present writ-application.

9. Mr.Chetan Pandya, the learned counsel appearing for the writ-applicant, has put forward the following submissions to make good his case that the writ application deserves to be allowed and the reliefs prayed for in the writ-application may be granted.

The submissions are as under:

“1. Under Rule 138A of the CGST Rules, the driver of the conveyance is required to carry invoice of bill of supply or delivery challan and e-way bil