2023 (5) TMI 710 - HC - GST

Seeking release of detained goods - Permission sought by the transporter not the owner of the goods - Section 129(1) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Though Section 129 provides for various situations where release of conveyance and goods may be sought, Section 129(6) is specific to a transporter and enables a transporter to seek release of the conveyance in the circumstances mentioned therein, being, upon payment of penalty under sub-section (3) or a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh, whichever is less. The benefit as above, is always available to the petitioner before me. The submission made now seeking release of conveyance, is on the ground that tax has been paid in full. It is not for the transporter to make this submission as such payment, if at all would have been borne by the assessee concerned, and not the transporter. To be noted that the assessee is not on affidavit before this Court attesting to the aforesaid position. Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in TVL. THIRUVANNAMALAIYAR TRANSPORT REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SR. V. KESAVAN VERSUS THE DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE TAX OFFICE I (INT) , VELLORE 2022 (12) TMI 710 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . In that case, the distinction between the manner in which Section 129 would operate qua a consignor/consignee on the one hand, and transporter on the other, has not been specifically argued and thus not taken note of or addressed. There are no merit in this Writ Petition and the same is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the interpretation of Section 129 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, regarding the detention, seizure, and release of goods and conveyances in transit.

Interpretation of Section 129:
The petitioner, a transporter, sought the quashing of an order of detention passed under Section 129(1) of the relevant Acts, but the court found the petition misconceived as Section 129 deals with detention, seizure, and release of goods and conveyances in transit.

Transporter's Entitlement to Seek Release:
The petitioner argued that the benefit granted to the owner of the goods under Section 129 should also be applicable to a transporter. However, the court interpreted that the entitlement to seek release under Section 129 is limited to the owner/agent/representative of the owner, not the transporter.

Role of Transporter in Goods' Release:
The court clarified that a transporter may seek release of only the conveyance, not the goods, upon satisfaction of statutory conditions. The court distinguished between the roles of various persons involved in the transaction of goods carriage and highlighted the limited benefit available to a transporter.

Decision on Writ Petition:
After detailed discussion and considering relevant provisions, the court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it along with connected miscellaneous petitions, without imposing any costs.

Separate Judgment:
The judgment was delivered by Honourable Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth.