9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1410 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of Confiscation proceedings - Perishable goods - 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.
Issues:
1. Confiscation proceedings concerning perishable goods under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Analysis: Issue 1: Confiscation proceedings concerning perishable goods under Section 130 of the Act - The learned Senior Counsel highlighted that the goods in question were perishable. - Section 130 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 mandates that in confiscation proceedings, the officer must offer the owner an option to pay in lieu of confiscation. - The petitioner expressed willingness to pay the amount in lieu of confiscation, but the 1st respondent did not comply with the statutory requirement. - The judge emphasized that the 1st respondent must adhere to the statute, which provides the opportunity for the owner to make the required payment instead of facing confiscation. - It was clarified that if the petitioner offers to pay the amount specified under Section 130(2) of the Act, the 1st respondent must release the goods upon payment. - The court directed the release of goods in favor of the petitioner upon payment as per the statute, emphasizing the clarity of the statutory provisions. This judgment underscores the importance of following statutory provisions in confiscation proceedings and ensuring that the rights of the owner, especially concerning perishable goods, are upheld. The court's decision emphasizes the obligation of the authorities to comply with the provisions of the Act and provide the option for payment in lieu of confiscation as mandated by law.
|
