2018 (12) TMI 295 - HC - GST

Release of Goods - goods seized on account of improper invoice in respect of some of the builites - Held that - Since the petitioner is the selling dealer and the sale transaction has not attained finality, he continues to be the owner of the goods and is therefore entitle for the release the same in accordance with the provisions of Section 129 (1) (a) of the Act. Penalty - Held that - The penalty order has nothing to do with the order of the release and it can be challenged in the appropriate forum independently. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Proper application of Section 129 (1) (a) of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 for release of seized goods.
2. Interpretation of ownership in the context of release of goods.
3. Distinction between penalty order and release order.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the application of Section 129 (1) (a) of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 for the release of seized goods. The petitioner, a selling dealer, had goods seized due to improper invoices during transportation. The court emphasized that the petitioner, being the owner of the goods, was entitled to release the goods under Section 129 (1) (a) by depositing the necessary security and indemnity bond. This highlights the importance of complying with the specific provisions of the Act for the release of seized goods.

2. The judgment also delves into the interpretation of ownership concerning the release of goods. It clarifies that even though the sale transaction had not been finalized, the petitioner, as the selling dealer, retained ownership of the goods. This understanding of ownership played a crucial role in determining the petitioner's eligibility for releasing the goods under Section 129 (1) (a) of the Act. The court's interpretation underscores the legal significance of ownership in such cases involving seized goods.

3. Furthermore, the judgment distinguishes between a penalty order and a release order. The court pointed out that the penalty order issued was a separate matter from the release of the goods. It highlighted that the penalty order could be challenged in an appropriate forum independently. By making this distinction, the court ensured clarity in the legal proceedings and emphasized the need to address different aspects of the case through distinct legal avenues. This distinction helps in maintaining procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Allahabad High Court provides a detailed analysis of the issues related to the release of seized goods under the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. It clarifies the application of specific provisions, the importance of ownership in such cases, and the distinction between penalty orders and release orders. The decision underscores the need for strict adherence to statutory requirements and legal procedures in matters concerning the release of seized goods.