2019 (7) TMI 690 - HC - GST

Release of detained goods - section 129(1) (a) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - insufficient documents for transportation of goods - transport of Betel nuts - Confiscation - HELD THAT - It goes without saying that the betel nut is a perishable commodity. The goods are lying in the open past almost 35 days. By the time the confiscation proceedings are concluded, probably, the goods may get completely destroyed or may suffer extensive damage. It is brought to our notice that as on date, the writ applicant has deposited the amount of tax to the tune of ₹ 2,29,320/- i.e. 5% under the GST. He has also deposited the amount of penalty to the tune of ₹ 2,29,320/-,i.e. equal to amount of tax amount. According to the respondents, the calculation of fine of confiscation of goods would come to ₹ 45,86,400/-. It goes without saying that the writ applicant would ultimately be governed by the final orders that may be passed in the confiscation proceedings subject to his right of preferring an appeal against such order of confiscation or availing any other legal remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. The conveyance and the goods should be released pending the confiscation proceedings, subject to the writ applicant executing a personal bond of ₹ 45,86,400/- to the satisfaction of the respondents nos. 2,3 and 4 - On executing a personal bond of ₹ 45,86,400/-, the respondent shall, forthwith, release the conveyance and the goods, subject to the final outcome of the confiscation proceedings. Application disposed off.

Issues:
1. Seizure of goods under section 129(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
2. Challenge to the action of declining to release the goods.
3. Detainment of conveyance and goods under Section 130 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
4. Release of conveyance and goods pending confiscation proceedings.
5. Deposit of tax, penalty, and fine in relation to the detained goods.

1. Seizure of Goods under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017:
The petitioner challenged the respondents' decision not to release the goods seized under section 129(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner, engaged in trading Arecanut/Beetlenut, detailed the transaction and the seizure of goods during transportation. Despite providing requisite documents, the goods were seized, leading to a series of communications between the petitioner and the respondent no. 4. The petitioner contended that the genuine commercial transaction between registered entities warranted the release of goods.

2. Challenge to the Action of Declining to Release the Goods:
The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus or Certiorari to direct the release of the seized goods and truck under section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner highlighted the compliance with documentation requirements and the efforts made to secure the release of goods, including payment of applicable tax and penalty under protest. Despite repeated requests and submissions of necessary documents, the respondents did not release the goods, prompting the petitioner to seek legal intervention for relief.

3. Detainment of Conveyance and Goods under Section 130 of the GST Act, 2017:
The respondents detained the conveyance and goods under Section 130 of the GST Act, 2017, initiating confiscation proceedings. The respondents acknowledged the perishable nature of the goods and the potential damage due to prolonged detention. Considering the perishable nature of the goods and the ongoing confiscation proceedings, the Court deliberated on the release of the conveyance and goods pending the final outcome of the confiscation proceedings.

4. Release of Conveyance and Goods Pending Confiscation Proceedings:
The Court ordered the release of the conveyance and goods pending confiscation proceedings, subject to the petitioner executing a personal bond to the satisfaction of the respondents. The petitioner's deposit of tax and penalty was noted, and the Court emphasized that the final outcome of the confiscation proceedings would determine the petitioner's liability. The release was contingent upon the execution of a personal bond, ensuring compliance with the legal process.

5. Deposit of Tax, Penalty, and Fine in Relation to the Detained Goods:
The respondents outlined the tax, penalty, and fine amounts payable in relation to the detained goods, as per the provisions of the GST Act, 2017. The Court considered the amounts deposited by the petitioner and directed the release of the goods upon execution of a personal bond. The decision aimed to prevent further deterioration or damage to the perishable goods during the ongoing confiscation proceedings, balancing the interests of all parties involved.

← Previous Next →