2019 (12) TMI 1215 - HC - GST

Release of confiscated conveyance - section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - This matter was earlier heard on 23.12.2019. Subsequently, the applicant herein had furnished the details of the person at whose instance the goods were loaded in the applicant s conveyance at Morbi. By the notice dated 13.7.2019 issued in Form GST MOV-10 under section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the respondents have proposed fine of ₹ 60,795/- in lieu of confiscation of conveyance - Since the applicant seeks only release of the conveyance, at this stage, the court deems it fit to allow the application and modify the earlier order dated 27.9.2019 whereby the court had ordered that upon the petitioner depositing a sum of ₹ 4,00,000/- with the concerned authority, which shall be under protest, the respondents shall release the truck in question. The order is modified by directing the respondents to release Truck belonging to the applicant petitioner upon the petitioner depositing a sum of ₹ 60,795/- proposed to be levied by way of fine in lieu of confiscation of conveyance in the notice issued by the respondents under section 130 of the CGST Act - application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Release of conveyance bearing No.MH-18-M-8155 on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application seeking a direction for the release of a conveyance upon payment of a fine in lieu of confiscation. The court heard arguments from both parties, with the applicant represented by Mr. B.T. Rao and the respondent by Ms. Maithili Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader. Initially, a fine of &8377; 60,795 was proposed for the conveyance under section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The applicant, however, sought only the release of the conveyance. The court, considering the circumstances, modified the earlier order and directed the respondents to release the truck in question upon the petitioner depositing the sum of &8377; 60,795 as fine, instead of the previously ordered amount of &8377; 4,00,000. The application was allowed, and the rule was made absolute with no order as to costs. The judgment signifies a balance between the interests of the petitioner and the enforcement of tax laws.

This judgment highlights the application of section 130 of the CGST Act in the context of the proposed fine in lieu of confiscation of a conveyance. The court's decision to allow the application and modify the earlier order showcases a judicial approach that considers the specific relief sought by the petitioner, which was the release of the conveyance. By directing the release of the truck upon payment of the proposed fine, the court ensures compliance with the legal provisions while addressing the petitioner's immediate concern. The judgment reflects the court's discretion in balancing enforcement measures with the rights of the parties involved.

The legal representation in the case, with Mr. B.T. Rao appearing for the applicant and Ms. Maithili Mehta representing the respondent, demonstrates the adherence to procedural requirements and fair representation of interests before the court. The waiver of service of notice of rule by the Assistant Government Pleader further streamlines the proceedings, indicating a cooperative approach in the legal process. The court's consideration of the details provided by the applicant regarding the loading of goods in the conveyance adds a layer of factual analysis to the decision-making process, ensuring a comprehensive review of the circumstances leading to the imposition of the fine.

Overall, the judgment exemplifies a judicious application of legal principles and procedural fairness in addressing the issue of releasing a conveyance upon payment of a fine in lieu of confiscation. The modification of the earlier order based on the specific relief sought by the applicant underscores the court's commitment to equitable outcomes while upholding the provisions of the CGST Act. The clear directive to release the truck upon payment of the proposed fine signifies a pragmatic resolution that balances enforcement requirements with the petitioner's request, ultimately leading to a favorable outcome for the applicant.