2019 (6) TMI 1380 - 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. 3, 57, 000. Post this matter for further hearing on 24th July 2019.

Summary

Issues:
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. Balance amount required for releasing the seized goods.
4. Admissibility of interim relief and release of goods upon depositing a specified amount.
5. Requirement of an undertaking from the writ-applicant for further cooperation in case of unsuccessful petition.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of the seizure of goods by GST officers during transit when the E-Way Bill was not produced. The petitioner, engaged in the business of betel nuts, was transporting goods from Tamil Nadu to Delhi via Gujarat. The vehicle was intercepted in Gujarat, and the goods were seized due to non-compliance with E-Way Bill requirements.

2. The judgment delves into the interpretation of Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act. Section 129 mandates the issuance of a notice and an opportunity for a hearing before passing an order for detained goods. Section 130 allows for confiscation if there is non-compliance with Section 129. The court highlighted the necessity of following due procedure before resorting to confiscation under Section 130.

3. The court determined the balance amount required for releasing the seized goods. The petitioner had deposited a partial amount, but the authorities claimed a higher sum. The court directed the release of goods upon the payment of the remaining balance by the petitioner.

4. The judgment discusses the admissibility of interim relief and the release of goods upon depositing a specified amount. Citing a previous order, the court directed the authorities to release the goods upon the petitioner depositing the specified balance. The petitioner was instructed to file an undertaking for cooperation in further proceedings.

5. Lastly, the court emphasized the requirement of an undertaking from the writ-applicant for cooperation in case the petition is unsuccessful. The petitioner was directed to file an undertaking within a week, ensuring cooperation in subsequent legal proceedings. The matter was scheduled for further hearing on 24th July 2019, with direct service permitted.