9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1305 - HC - GSTValidity of Confiscation proceedings - entitlement for option to pay in lieu of confiscation - Section 130 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 - HELD THAT - The 1st respondent is bound to abide by the mandate of the Statute. The Statute provides an opportunity for the owner of every goods to pay in lieu of confiscation the amounts as contemplated under the Statute. Since the Statute is clear in its terms there is no reason to doubt that the 1st respondent shall not abide by the terms of the Statute. Accordingly if the petitioner offers to pay the amount as contemplated under Section 130(2) of the Act it is needless to mention the 1st respondent shall release the goods in favour of the petitioner on such payment being made. Post on 16.09.2021.
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 130 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 regarding confiscation proceedings and payment in lieu of confiscation. Analysis: The judgment by the High Court of Kerala involved a case where the petitioner's goods were subject to confiscation proceedings, with the goods being perishable in nature. The learned Senior Counsel highlighted that the petitioner was willing to pay the amount in lieu of confiscation as provided under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The court noted that the Act mandates that when confiscation proceedings are authorized, the officer must give the owner of the goods an option to pay in lieu of confiscation. The Senior Counsel argued that despite the petitioner's willingness to pay, the 1st respondent was not complying with the statutory requirement. Upon considering the arguments presented, the court held that the 1st respondent is obligated to adhere to the statutory provisions. The court emphasized that the Statute clearly provides an opportunity for the owner of the goods to make the required payment in lieu of confiscation as specified under Section 130(2) of the Act. The court concluded that if the petitioner offers to pay the specified amount, the 1st respondent must release the goods to the petitioner. The judgment directed the release of goods in favor of the petitioner upon payment and scheduled the matter for further proceedings on a specified date.
|
