2019 (6) TMI 1379 - HC - GST

Seizure of vehicle alongwith the goods - consignment of betel nuts - detained on the ground that E-Way Bill was not produced when demanded - HELD THAT - There are many larger issues involved in this petition, more particularly, with regard to the interpretation of Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act. Many petitions have been admitted and are pending for consideration in this regard - We propose to pass an order directing the respondent authorities to release the goods on the writ-applicant depositing the balance amount, i.e. ₹ 2,08,250. Post this matter for further hearing on 24th July 2019.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Seizure of goods by GST officers during transit due to non-production of E-Way Bill.
2. Interpretation of Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act.
3. Requirement of compliance with procedural aspects under Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act.
4. Release of goods upon depositing the balance amount by the writ-applicant.
5. The perishable nature of the goods in question.

Detailed analysis:
1. The High Court addressed the issue of the seizure of goods by GST officers during transit when the E-Way Bill was not produced. The writ-applicant, engaged in the business of betel nuts and a registered dealer under the GST Act, had a consignment detained in Gujarat while en route from Tamil Nadu to Delhi. The applicant promptly made representations offering to deposit amounts to secure the release of the goods.

2. The Court delved into the interpretation of Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act. It noted that Section 129 requires a specific procedure to be followed by officers before resorting to Section 130 for confiscation. The Court cited a previous order highlighting the necessity of compliance with the provisions of Sections 129 and 130, especially emphasizing the need for due process and the opportunity for the concerned person to be heard.

3. Emphasizing procedural compliance, the Court noted that the show-cause notice under Section 130 for confiscation was issued without following the requirements of Section 129. The Court observed that the goods in question were perishable, further supporting the need for adherence to procedural safeguards before resorting to confiscation.

4. The Court directed the release of the goods upon the writ-applicant depositing the balance amount, citing a precedent for support. The order specified the amount to be deposited and required the applicant to file an undertaking to cooperate in further proceedings if the petition did not succeed ultimately.

5. Considering the perishable nature of the goods, the Court ordered the immediate release of the detained goods and the vehicle upon the deposit of the specified amount. The writ-applicant was given a week to file an undertaking for cooperation in case of an unfavorable outcome. The matter was scheduled for further hearing on a specified date for ongoing proceedings.