Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, PRANAV TRIVEDI
S R Enterprises – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner expressed need for goods release. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. violation of natural justice claimed by petitioner. (Para 4) |
| 3. respondent counters with alternative remedy. (Para 5) |
| 4. court emphasizes alternative remedy per law. (Para 6) |
| 5. petition dismissed; time extended for appeal. (Para 7) |
ORDER :
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Sameer Gupta with learned advocate Mr. Monal Chaglani for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shrunjal Shah for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5.
2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
“a. Certiorari quashing the MOV 11 (Detention order dated 01.10.2024 (Annexure A to the Writ Petition);
(b) Certiorari quashing and Summary Order form GST DRC-07 dated 30.10.2024 (Annexure B to the Writ Petition);
(c) Pending notice, admission and final hearing of the petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the learned Respondent Authorities to forthwith release goods along with vehicle No. RJ23 GC 1469 detained/seized in purported exercise of powers under Section 129 of the GST Acts;
(d) Issue any other Writ, Order or Direction in fav
Natural justice requirements necessitate notice to affected parties; however, notice to the driver suffices, supporting reliance on alternative statutory remedies for contesting orders.
Point of law: The extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing for release of the vehicles or goods, during the pendency of the confiscation, can only be sparingly exercised ....
Point of Law - Section 68 of the GST Act which empowers the authority concerned to intercept the vehicle and the goods. The said provision of Section 68 is required to be reproduced.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the independence of proceedings for detention of goods under Section 129 and confiscation of goods under Section 130 of the CGST/APGST Act, as expl....
The court ruled that equitable relief is denied to parties lacking clean hands, especially where fraudulent practices are evident in tax evasion involving bogus entities.
The court established that confiscation under Section 130 requires prior action under Section 129, and adherence to natural justice is essential in such proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
