2022 (3) TMI 1092 - HC - GST

Detention of goods alogwith vehicle - applicant has deposited the penalty amount - confiscation proceedings - HELD THAT - The matter as on date is at the stage of MOV-10. We do not want to come in the way of the authorities so far as the confiscation proceedings are concerned. It is open for the concerned Department to proceed further with the confiscation proceedings. However, we are inclined to order release of the goods and the conveyance since the writ-applicant has deposited an amount of ₹ 3,25,454/- only by a Challan dated 10.03.2022 towards penalty. This is 200% of the tax amount. The value of the goods appears to be approximately ₹ 9,00,000/- - Let the goods and the conveyance be released subject to the writ-applicant filing an appropriate undertaking in writing on oath to the satisfaction of the authority concerned and also, by executing a bond of the amount that may be levied towards fine in-lieu of confiscation. This writ-application stands disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
- Detention of goods and conveyance under Section-130 of the GST Act.
- Relief sought through a writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
- Payment of penalty and release of goods and conveyance.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves multiple writ-applications with similar issues being disposed of analogously. The lead matter, Special Civil Application No.4912 of 2022, sets the tone for the rest of the cases.

2. The writ-applicant, a Company engaged in wholesale trading of scrap and registered under the GST Act, faced detention of goods and conveyance during transit. The detention was based on a notice in FORM GST MOV-10, leading to confiscation proceedings under Section-130 of the Act.

3. The relief sought by the writ-applicant included quashing the impugned notice and order of detention, releasing the goods and conveyance, and granting an ex-parte interim order. The Court was urged to issue appropriate writs or directions for the same.

4. The Court noted that the writ-applicant had deposited a penalty amount of ?3,25,454, which was 200% of the tax amount, towards release of goods valued at approximately ?9,00,000. Considering this, the Court inclined to order the release of goods and conveyance.

5. The Court ordered the release of goods and conveyance upon the writ-applicant submitting a written undertaking on oath to the satisfaction of the authority concerned and executing a bond for any fine levied in place of confiscation. This approach was consistent across all connected writ-applications where penalties had been paid.

6. The judgment emphasizes the importance of compliance with penalty payments and procedural requirements for the release of detained goods and conveyance. It highlights the Court's discretion in balancing enforcement actions with the rights of the concerned parties under the law.