9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 827 - HC - GSTDetention and seizure of goods - Confiscation of goods - case of Revenue is that various irregularities were noticed by the authorities concerned at the time of seizure and detention of the goods and the conveyance - HELD THAT - We are of the view that we should not interfere at the stage of adjudication of the confiscation proceedings under Section 130 of the Act. The adjudication proceedings shall proceed in accordance with law. However, we are inclined to grant some relief to the writ applicant so as to protect the goods getting damaged, but at the same time keeping in mind the interest of the State also. We direct the writ applicant to deposit an amount of ₹ 1,70,787/- towards tax and penalty with the authority concerned and also furnish a bank guarantee to the tune of ₹ 17,07,876/- of any Nationalized bank. On deposit of ₹ 1,70,787/- towards tax and penalty along with the bank guarantee of ₹ 17,07,876/- of any Nationalized bank, the authority concerned shall release the goods and the vehicle at the earliest. The deposit of bank guarantee shall abide by the final outcome after adjudication. Application disposed off.
Issues:
1. Detention and confiscation of goods under GST Act 2. Legality of detention and seizure of goods 3. Opportunity of hearing in confiscation proceedings Analysis: Issue 1: Detention and confiscation of goods under GST Act The petitioner filed a writ application seeking relief from the detention order and confiscation notice of goods transported in a vehicle intercepted by GST authorities. The authorities had initially passed orders under Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act, determining tax and penalty and issuing a notice for confiscation. Subsequently, a final order of confiscation was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The court quashed the final order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision after granting a hearing to the petitioner. Issue 2: Legality of detention and seizure of goods The petitioner contended that the detention and seizure of goods were illegal as all necessary documents, including the E-Way bill, were with the driver during the interception. The petitioner argued that there was no evidence of any breach of the GST Act or Rules. On the other hand, the respondent authorities highlighted irregularities observed during the seizure, such as the absence of valid documents for the goods in transit and defective documents submitted. The authorities emphasized the need for further verification regarding the genuineness of the goods and documents. Issue 3: Opportunity of hearing in confiscation proceedings The court decided not to interfere with the ongoing adjudication of the confiscation proceedings under Section 130 of the GST Act. However, considering the interests of both the petitioner and the State, the court directed the petitioner to deposit a specified amount towards tax and penalty and furnish a bank guarantee to protect the goods from damage. The court ordered the release of goods and the vehicle upon compliance with the deposit and bank guarantee requirements, emphasizing that the adjudication proceedings would continue independently. In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ application by granting relief to the petitioner to safeguard the goods while allowing the confiscation proceedings to proceed in accordance with the law. The judgment balanced the interests of both parties by imposing financial obligations on the petitioner to secure the release of the goods and the vehicle pending the final outcome of the adjudication process.
|
