2024 (9) TMI 1150 - HC - GST

Seeking release of the confiscated goods and the conveyance - section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - This writ petition is dismissed on the ground that the petitioner-Firm did not avail of the interim order dated 9th February 2024. There is no application for extension of time or modification in the order 9 the February 2024 to the extent that the petitioner-Firm may be permitted to furnish bond for Rs. 27,02,560/- and other taxes and penalty instead of bank guarantee. This is also relevant to indicate that the petitioner-Firm was required to avail the opportunity for release of confiscated goods by depositing the amount of tax, penalty, fine etc. within a reasonable time but even on expiry of about one and a half month it did not avail of the said opportunity. This is well settled that the writ Court exercises its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in furtherance of public good. The powers under Article 226 of the Constitution though is plenary in nature but its exercise is discretionary. Therefore, the writ Court is duty bound to take all relevant facts into consideration to satisfy its judicial conscience whether relief can be granted to the aggrieved party. Now in a situation like the present one which discloses serious disputed questions of fact as to nature of purchase and sale of the confiscated goods, and the finding of the statutory authority that the recipient is the non-existent Firm, the writ Court shall not exercise its discretionary powers to entertain this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under section 130 of CGST for release of confiscated goods and conveyance.

Analysis:
The writ petition challenges an order passed under section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, seeking the release of confiscated goods and a conveyance. The petitioner, a sole proprietary firm dealing in Betel nuts and dried Areca nuts, sold goods to a registered company. Despite producing necessary documents during a vehicle inspection, the goods were detained, leading to the issuance of a notice and subsequent order under section 130 of the CGST.

The petitioner argued that the proceedings under section 129 of the CGST should not automatically result in confiscation under section 130. However, the court found no merit in this argument and noted that the petitioner did not avail of an interim order allowing for the furnishing of a bond in place of a bank guarantee. The petitioner failed to deposit the required amount within a reasonable time, even after being granted an opportunity.

The court emphasized that the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and must consider all relevant facts. Given the disputed nature of the transaction and the authority's findings regarding the recipient, the court declined to grant relief and dismissed the writ petition. The interim order was recalled, and a related application was deemed infructuous, concluding the matter.