2022 (11) TMI 1335 - HC - GST

Confiscation of the goods passed under Section 130 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - interaction of Section 129 and 130 of the GST Act - powers exercisable by the authorities under the said provision in relation to the seizure and confiscation of the goods. HELD THAT - Rule, returnable on 8.12.2022. The respondents are directed to file affidavit-in-reply, if any, on or before 6.12.2022. By way of interim relief it is directed that the respondents shall release the goods and conveyance of the petitioner, confiscated and detained, pursuant to the impugned orders, subject to compliance of the conditions imposed by the petitioner. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods under Section 130 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Interaction of Section 129 and 130 of the GST Act regarding seizure and confiscation of goods.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought to set aside orders of confiscation of goods under Section 130 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The authorities seized the goods in transit under Section 129 of the Act and subsequently proceeded to confiscate them. The petitioner argued that the authorities should have followed the conditions in Section 129 for release upon payment of penalty and tax to close the proceedings. The petitioner highlighted the amendment in Section 130, emphasizing the omission of the phrase 'notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,' asserting that this amendment altered the operation of Section 130. The central issue raised was the interplay between Section 129 and 130 of the GST Act and the powers vested in authorities for seizure and confiscation of goods.

The court directed the respondents to file an affidavit-in-reply by a specified date and granted interim relief to the petitioner. As part of the interim relief, the court ordered the release of the confiscated goods and conveyance upon the petitioner's compliance with certain conditions. These conditions included the deposit of specified amounts for penalty and fine, as well as the furnishing of a bond. Non-compliance with these conditions would result in the relief being vacated. The court permitted direct service of the order.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the petitioner's challenge to the confiscation of goods under the GST Act. It examined the provisions of Sections 129 and 130, emphasizing the need for authorities to adhere to the prescribed conditions for release of seized goods. The court provided interim relief to the petitioner, outlining specific conditions for the release of confiscated goods and conveyance. The judgment underscored the importance of compliance with the specified conditions to maintain the granted relief.