2019 (9) TMI 1249 - HC - GST

Release of detained goods - section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - evasion of tax - HELD THAT - By way of ad-interim relief, the respondents are directed to forthwith release the Truck No. MH18BG3887, upon the petitioner paying the amount of ₹ 58,576/-, as stipulated in the impugned order, as fine in lieu of confiscation of conveyance subject to the final outcome of the petition. Issue Notice, returnable on 10.10.2019.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of confiscation under GST Acts - Lack of reasons recorded in impugned order - Allegation of non-violation of tax provisions - Calculation of fine in lieu of confiscation - Validity of impugned order.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order of confiscation made under section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, along with relevant provisions of State/Union Territory GST Acts and the Integrated GST Act. The petitioner's advocate highlighted that the impugned order lacked proper reasoning as paragraph 5 was left blank without any findings recorded by the authority. It was argued that the petitioner did not violate any tax provisions to evade payment, as required under section 130 of the CGST Act. Additionally, it was pointed out that while the Officer confiscated only the goods, the authority calculated a fine in lieu of confiscation of the conveyance. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was non-speaking and therefore unsustainable.

Upon considering the submissions, the court issued a notice returnable on a specified date. As an interim measure, the respondents were directed to release the truck in question upon the petitioner paying a stipulated fine amount, subject to the final outcome of the petition. This directive aimed to provide immediate relief pending the resolution of the case, ensuring the petitioner's interests were safeguarded during the legal proceedings. The court's decision to grant interim relief showcased a balanced approach to address the petitioner's concerns while maintaining the integrity of the legal process.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of proper reasoning and adherence to legal provisions in orders of confiscation under the GST Acts. The court's intervention through issuing a notice and providing interim relief demonstrated a commitment to ensuring fairness and justice in the adjudication of disputes related to tax matters. The detailed analysis of the impugned order and the subsequent directions by the court underscored the significance of procedural correctness and substantive compliance in legal proceedings concerning tax enforcement and penalties.