2020 (4) TMI 60 - HC - GST

Release of Confiscated goods - section 130 of GST Act - appealabe order or not - HELD THAT - Considering the fact that the goods now stand released to the petitioner subject to terms and conditions, the Court permits the petitioner to raise all the points which were raised in the present writ petition in the statutory appeal to be filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20th July, 2019. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods under Section 130 of Punjab Goods and Service Act, 2017 (PGST Act, 2017).
2. Release of detained goods/vehicle subject to payment of demanded tax and penalty.
3. Failure to avail statutory remedy against the confiscation order.
4. Permission to raise points from the writ petition in the statutory appeal.
5. Condonation of delay in filing the statutory appeal.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner approached the High Court when goods were confiscated under Section 130 of the PGST Act, 2017. The Court ordered the release of the detained goods/vehicle upon payment of demanded tax and 100% penalty, along with a personal bond equal to the value of the goods to secure the fine. The order for release was made on the condition of fulfilling these terms.

2. It was acknowledged that the goods had been released in compliance with the court's order dated 24th October 2019. The confiscation of goods had occurred on 20th July 2019, which was deemed appealable. The petitioner, however, had not availed the statutory remedy against this confiscation order due to the pendency of the writ petition.

3. The petitioner's counsel mentioned that the statutory remedy was not pursued because of the ongoing writ petition. Considering that the goods had been released subject to certain conditions, the Court allowed the petitioner to raise all points from the writ petition in the statutory appeal against the confiscation order dated 20th July 2019.

4. The respondent/State's counsel assured that if the appeal was filed within 15 days from the current date, no objections would be raised regarding the condonation of any delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition, permitting the petitioner to address the issues raised in the writ petition in the forthcoming statutory appeal.

This judgment highlights the Court's consideration of the release of confiscated goods under the PGST Act, 2017, the petitioner's failure to pursue the statutory remedy during the pendency of the writ petition, and the subsequent permission granted to raise those issues in the statutory appeal, subject to timely filing and certain conditions.