2022 (9) TMI 605 - HC - GST

Seeking release of detained goods - case of the petitioner is that the benefit granted to the owner of the goods to seek release of the detained goods on payment of penalty or furnishing of security, would be equally applicable to the case of a transporter as well - Section 129(6) of CGST Act - HELD THAT - Section 129(1) specifically addresses any person transporting any goods or storing any goods. This aligns with the use of the phraseology, person transporting any goods or the owner of such goods that is used in sub-Section 6 - the entitlement to seek release under Section 129 is only qua the owner/agent/representative of the owner. This interpretation is supported by the language used in the first proviso that specifically uses the term 'transporter' and states that such transporter may seek release of the conveyance on payment of penalty or of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- whichever was less. The legislature has been conscious of the roles of the various persons involved in a transaction of carriage of goods such as the consignor/agents/representatives, the consignee/purchasers and transporter. The entitlement to seek release has also been carefully and consciously sculpted. While the owner or any person transporting the goods has been granted the right to seek release, only a limited benefit has been made available to a transporter, and that too, qua the release of conveyance alone - the transporter may seek release of only the conveyance, upon satisfaction of the statutory conditions. The petitioners are permitted to file appeals accompanied by applications seeking release of the goods. Upon receipt of such appeals/petitions seeking interim release, the appellate authority shall hear the petitioners and pass orders in regard to the interim applications within a period of one week. Upon payment of the 25%, the seized goods become liable to be released automatically? - HELD THAT - There is consensus on the position that this would not be the correct position and that the question of release, is one that will have to be decided by the appellate authority upon the strength of the case made out by the asessees including, but not limited to prima facie case, financial stringency and balance of convenience. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Detention and penalty on consignments transported by road.
2. Interpretation of Section 129 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
3. Rights of transporter vs. owner/agent/representative in seeking release of detained goods.
4. Applicability of interim relief in appeals under Section 107 of the Act.

Analysis:
1. Detention and Penalty on Consignments Transported by Road:
The judgment addresses three writ petitions involving consignments detained by State Tax Officers for various reasons. The petitioners challenge the orders of detention and penalty imposed under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court notes that the petitioners intend to file statutory appeals challenging the impugned orders.

2. Interpretation of Section 129 of the Act:
The central issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 129, which deals with the detention, seizure, and release of goods and conveyances in transit. The court analyzes the provisions of Section 129(1) and (6) in detail. It deliberates on whether the benefit of seeking release of detained goods is limited to the owner/agent/representative or extends to the transporter as well. The court ultimately concludes that the transporter can seek release of the conveyance only, not the goods.

3. Rights of Transporter vs. Owner/Agent/Representative:
The court clarifies that the entitlement to seek release under Section 129 is restricted to the owner/agent/representative of the goods. While the owner or person transporting the goods can seek release, a limited benefit is available to the transporter, specifically for the release of the conveyance. The judgment emphasizes the careful delineation of roles and entitlements under the statute.

4. Applicability of Interim Relief in Appeals under Section 107:
The judgment further discusses the applicability of interim relief in appeals under Section 107 of the Act. Drawing on a precedent related to the powers of appellate authorities, the court permits the petitioners to file appeals accompanied by applications seeking release of the goods. The appellate authority is directed to hear the petitioners and decide on interim applications within a specified timeframe.

In conclusion, the judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of the issues related to detention, penalty, interpretation of statutory provisions, and the rights of different parties involved in the transportation of goods. It clarifies the scope of entitlements under the law and sets out a framework for seeking release of detained goods through statutory appeals.