2020 (9) TMI 1105 - HC - GST

Non-constitution of GST Tribunal - Submission is that issues of facts and law both can be raised before the Tribunal in view of Sections 112 and 113 of the Act - HELD THAT - The seized goods shall be released to the petitioner upon payment of specified tax along with 100 % penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the Act. For the remaining amount, the petitioner shall furnish security other than cash and bank guarantee. Such payment shall remain subject to the final determination to be made in this matter. Learned State counsel shall also apprise the Court as to by what date the GST Tribunal would be constituted - List in the regular cause list after its publication resumes.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Challenge against order of proper Authority and first Appellate Authority due to non-existence of GST Tribunal.
2. Interpretation of liability under Section 129(1)(a) and Section 129(1)(b) of the Act.
3. Release of seized goods upon payment of specified tax and penalty.
4. Requirement of security other than cash and bank guarantee for remaining amount.
5. Inquiry into the constitution of GST Tribunal.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenges the order of the proper Authority and first Appellate Authority due to the absence of a GST Tribunal. The submission emphasizes the importance of the Tribunal for addressing issues of facts and law under Sections 112 and 113 of the Act. The counsel argues that the liability of the petitioner should be limited to tax and penalty under Section 129(1)(a) rather than Section 129(1)(b), asserting that the penalty imposition was erroneous. Additionally, it is highlighted that the goods in question have been seized since December 8, 2019.

The Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, rules that the seized goods will be released to the petitioner upon payment of the specified tax and a 100% penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the Act. However, for the remaining amount, the petitioner is directed to provide security other than cash or a bank guarantee. This payment is subject to final determination in the matter, indicating a provisional release of goods pending resolution.

Furthermore, the State counsel is directed to inform the Court about the timeline for the constitution of the GST Tribunal, underscoring the need for the Tribunal's establishment to address such matters effectively. The case is listed in the regular cause list for further proceedings after publication resumes, signaling ongoing legal proceedings and the need for a comprehensive resolution.