2019 (6) TMI 815 - HC - GST

Seizure of goods alongwith vehicle - Legality and validity of the notice issued by the department under Section 130 of the Act - HELD THAT - There are many petitions pending on this issue, more particularly, whether Section 129 would apply or Section 130 could straightway be invoked by the authorities. The principal issue will be decided by this Court along with the other petitions, which are pending. However, we direct the authorities to release the conveyance as well as the goods on the writ depositing an amount of ₹ 1,44,180/with the department. On deposit of the said requisite amount, the conveyance as well as the goods shall immediately be released. Post the matter for further hearing on 19th June 2019 along with other allied petitions. Direct service is permitted.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Validity of notice issued under Section 130 of the Act.
2. Interpretation of Section 129 and Section 130 in relation to the case.
3. Release of goods and conveyance upon depositing a requisite amount.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of notice under Section 130 of the Act
The judgment addresses the legality and validity of the notice issued by the department under Section 130 of the Act. The writ applicant, engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of nonferrous metal, faced a situation where goods in transit were intercepted and seized by the authorities. The tax liabilities and penalty, as per the eWay Bill, amounted to a significant sum. The court acknowledged the principal issue raised in the writ application concerning the notice's legality and validity under Section 130. It was noted that there are pending petitions on this issue, particularly the applicability of Section 129 vis-a-vis invoking Section 130 directly. The court decided to address this principal issue alongside other pending petitions.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 129 and Section 130
The judgment highlights the confusion regarding the application of Section 129 or the direct invocation of Section 130 by the authorities. The court recognized the need to clarify this interpretation, which would be crucial not only for this case but also for other similar petitions pending before the court. By directing the release of the conveyance and goods upon depositing a specified amount with the department, the court aimed to provide interim relief while reserving the decision on the principal issue for further consideration.

Issue 3: Release of goods and conveyance
In addressing the immediate concern of the seized goods and conveyance, the court ordered the authorities to release them upon the writ applicant depositing the required amount with the department. By facilitating the release upon deposit, the court balanced the interests of the parties involved pending a comprehensive decision on the principal issue. The judgment scheduled further hearings on the matter, aligning it with other related petitions for a holistic consideration of the legal complexities involved.

Overall, the judgment reflects a nuanced approach to balancing the immediate relief sought by the writ applicant with the need for a thorough examination of the legal issues at hand, particularly concerning the validity of the notice under Section 130 of the Act and the interpretation of relevant statutory provisions.