2025 (3) TMI 53 - HC - GST

Imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation - allegation is that the Appellate Authority had wrongly reduced the fine in lieu of confiscation - HELD THAT - The entire quantity of gold seized (presently in the custody of the Department) shall be released to the petitioner on the petitioner executing bonds in the manner and form required by the Senior Enforcement Officer Enforcement Squad State Goods Services Tax Department SGST Complex Palakkad. The property having an extent of 6 Ares and 7 Sq. metres in Survey No.73/4-435 of Potta village Chalakkudy Taluk Thrissur District shall be accepted as security for the release of the seized gold pending adjudication of the matter by the Tribunal - The owner of the property (father of the petitioner in W.P.(C.) No.20073 of 2024) will file an affidavit and undertake that he will not alienate or further encumber the property referred to above until culmination of proceedings before the Tribunal. Petition disposed off.

Summary

The issues presented and considered in the judgment are as follows:1. Challenge to the order imposing a fine in lieu of confiscation.2. Dispute over the reduction of the fine by the Appellate Authority.3. Release of seized gold pending adjudication by the Tribunal.4. Acceptance of property as security for the release of seized gold.5. Requirement for the petitioner to pay the penalty before seeking release of the gold.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. The relevant legal framework and precedents considered by the Court include the provisions of the CGST/SGST Acts. The Court noted a previous judgment where it allowed the release of seized goods on sufficient security being provided. The Court emphasized that the gold in question was the stock-in-trade of the dealer.2. The Court interpreted that since the goods could be released on payment of a fine in lieu of confiscation, and considering the nature of the seized gold as stock-in-trade, it directed the release of the entire quantity of gold subject to the execution of bonds by the concerned parties.3. Key evidence and findings include the seizure of gold by the authorities and the willingness of the petitioner to provide security for its release. The Court found that the gold could be released pending adjudication by the Tribunal.4. The application of the law to the facts involved the Court directing the release of the seized gold to the petitioner upon the execution of necessary bonds and providing property as security.5. The treatment of competing arguments involved the Court acknowledging the contentions of both parties but ultimately deciding to release the gold subject to certain conditions.Significant Holdings:The Court held that the seized gold should be released to the petitioner upon the execution of bonds and providing property as security. The Court emphasized that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and that the Tribunal would decide the appeals in accordance with the law.Final determinations on each issue:1. The Court directed the release of the seized gold to the petitioner upon the execution of bonds.2. The property was accepted as security for the release of the seized gold.3. The petitioner was required to pay the penalty before seeking the release of the gold.The Court's decision was based on the legal provisions of the CGST/SGST Acts and previous judgments, ultimately leading to the release of the seized gold subject to certain conditions and pending adjudication by the Tribunal.