2024 (8) TMI 1382 - HC - GST

Seeking an implementation of the order of the Appellate Authority by releasing the seized material - difference in the quantity mentioned in the delivery challan and in the actual quantity of gold - HELD THAT - Though the learned Senior Government Pleader would contend that the goods in question in this case (namely the gold ornaments) are liable for confiscation, since it is settled that the goods can be released on the payment of fine in lieu of confiscation and considering the fact that the gold ornaments are stock-in-trade of the petitioner, these writ petitions are disposed off without going into the merits of the contentions raised by either side and directing that the entire quantity of 1647.970 grams of gold which has been seized from the petitioner shall be released on the aforesaid Diljith K K and the aforesaid Mohandas K K executing bonds in the manner and form required by the 2nd respondent. The aforesaid Diljith K K and the aforesaid Mohandas K K will undertake that they will not alienate the property covered by Exts. P9 and P10 documents till the culmination of proceedings. The petitioner as also the State will thereafter be entitled to approach the Appellate Tribunal (yet to be constituted) if they are in any manner aggrieved by the proceedings of the Appellate Authority. Petition disposed off.

Issues:
1. Interpretation of order under Section 107 of the CGST / SGST Acts
2. Seizure of gold jewelry due to clerical error in delivery challan
3. Adjudication process and imposition of penalties
4. Appeal before the 1st Appellate Authority and subsequent orders
5. Dispute over the quantity of seized gold and delivery challan
6. Arguments regarding release of seized material against bond
7. Legal precedents cited by both parties
8. Offer of property bonds for recovery of tax, penalty, or fine
9. Decision on releasing seized gold and conditions imposed
10. Direction for approaching the Appellate Tribunal

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to writ petitions challenging an order passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 107 of the CGST / SGST Acts. The petitioner sought implementation of the order, while the State filed a petition challenging the same due to the absence of a constituted Tribunal for further appeals.
2. The petitioner, a wholesale dealer in gold jewelry, faced a seizure of gold due to a clerical error in a delivery challan. The discrepancy in the quantity of gold mentioned in the challan led to the seizure by the 1st respondent under Section 67 (2) of the Acts.
3. The adjudication process resulted in the imposition of penalties and fines by the 2nd respondent. Subsequent appeal before the 1st Appellate Authority led to a partial release of the seized gold, with penalties imposed only on the unaccounted quantity.
4. The State disputed the release of a portion of the gold based on the delivery challan and contended that the entire seized quantity should be subject to proceedings.
5. Legal arguments were presented citing relevant judgments, with the petitioner advocating for release against a bond, while the State emphasized the manipulability of delivery challans.
6. The petitioner offered property bonds for recovery of dues, and the Court, considering the stock-in-trade nature of the gold ornaments, directed the release of the entire seized quantity against the mentioned bonds.
7. The judgment concluded by directing the parties to approach the Appellate Tribunal once constituted for further appeals, emphasizing that the decision did not reflect any opinion on the merits of the case.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and the Court's decision in the matter.

← Previous Next →