Mere suspicion is not sufficient to invoke provision of confiscation: UK HC

Case details: A.P. Refinery (P.) Ltd. v. State of Uttarakhand - [2021] 130 taxmann.com 307 (Uttarakhand)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ. and Alok Kumar Verma, J.
  • Puneet Agarwal, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner. Mohit Maulekhi and V.K. Kapruwan, Ld. Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

Facts of the case

The petitioner was transporting Rice Bran Oil from its factory located in Jagraon, Punjab to a dealer and the GST officers intercepted vehicles. The drivers produced e-Invoices, e-Way bills, bilty etc. but e-way bills were expired and vehicles were detained. The department also issued confiscation order and the petitioner challenged the confiscation orders by filing writ petition. It was contended that no opportunity of being heard was given before passing the confiscation orders under Section 130 in Form GST MOV-11.

High Court Held

The honorable High Court observed that the department failed to prove that the opportunity of being heard was given to the assessee before the passing the orders of the confiscation in Form GST MOV-11. Moreover, before invoking the provisions of Section 130 for confiscation, there should be a very strong base to proceed for confiscation. Mere suspicion is not sufficient to invoke the provision of the confiscation. Therefore, it was found that order under Section 130 was not passed in accordance with law and liable to be set aside. The court also directed to release the vehicles and goods upon execution of a bond for the value of the goods in Form GST INS-04 and furnishing of a security in form of a bank guarantee.