2024 (4) TMI 852 - HC - GST

Release of seized goods - contention of the appellants is that the present appellants are distinct and separate entity and has got nothing to do with the prayer made by the other writ petitioners namely Biswas Timber Mart and Others - HELD THAT - In the preamble portion of the order the facts have been recorded in which a finding has been recorded that the present appellants failed to differentiate the stock of timber belonging to them out of the total stock of timber in the business premises; they failed to differentiate the stock of timber belonging to Biswas Timber Mart (one of the petitioners in WPA 17991 of 2023) out of the total stock of timber in the business premises of M/s. Kanak Timber House with valid documents and failed to provide any valid documents which proves that the individual stock of timbers of Swapan Kumar Biswas and Tapan Kumar Biswas have been carrying forward since the time of transfer of the assets i.e. 2010 and M/s. Kanak Timber House could not even prove with supporting evidence that any stock of timbers ever belonged to any individual even their father. It is not required to comment the correctness of the order dated 1st September 2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax since the aggrieved persons are entitled to challenge the said order in terms of the provisions of the Act. Even going by the order passed in the writ petition dated 08.08.2023 it is seen that there have been several claims for release of the same stock of timber and these requests have been made much prior to the expiry of six months period from the date of seizure. Thus on account of the conduct of the appellants the appellants are not entitled to any relief in this appeal - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
The case involves interpretation of Section 67(7) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 regarding the return of seized goods and the requirement to approach the proper officer for release under Section 67(6).

Interpretation of Section 67(7):
The appellants argued that as per Section 67(7), goods seized under sub-section (2) must be returned if no notice is given within six months, with a provision for extension. The seizure in this case was on 25.03.2023, and the notice was issued on 26.12.2023, beyond the six-month period without an extension, thus necessitating the return of the goods u/s 67(7).

Requirement to Approach Proper Officer for Release:
The Single Bench dismissed the writ petition citing failure to approach the proper officer for release u/s 67(6). However, the High Court found that the appellants were not entitled to relief due to their conduct, as seen from a previous case involving Biswas Timber Mart and Others where the appellants failed to differentiate their stock from others and provide valid documents.

Distinct Entity Argument:
The appellants claimed to be a distinct entity from Biswas Timber Mart and Others, but the High Court noted that they failed to prove ownership of the seized goods and differentiate their stock, leading to a denial of relief. The High Court refrained from commenting on the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, stating that aggrieved parties could challenge it as per the Act.

Conclusion:
Considering the conduct of the appellants and their failure to differentiate their stock, the High Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the appellants were not entitled to any relief. The judgment stands dismissed without costs.