Detention of goods and conveyance for indefinite period is not correct: HC

Case Details: Active Metals (P.) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat - [2022] 137 taxmann.com 387 (Gujarat)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • J.B. Pardiwala and Ms. Nisha M. Thakore, JJ.
  • Anand Nainawati for the Petitioner. 
  • Utkarsh Sharma, Ld. Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The vehicle carrying goods of the petitioner was intercepted by department after which physical verification was ordered. As per physical verification report, description and quantity of goods in transit were in accordance with invoice, e-way bills and other allied documents. However, the vehicle along with goods were not released after physical verification. The petitioner filed writ petition against the same.

High Court Held

The Honorable High Court observed that after detention, no notice was issued for confiscation of conveyance and goods. The detention of conveyance and goods for an indefinite period of time was not going to serve any good purpose. The department should take final call whether any case of confiscation had been made out or not and court should not interfere in such matters. The petitioner was also directed to deposit amount of tax and penalty and department was directed to release conveyance and goods upon such deposit.