2020 (4) TMI 61 - HC - GST

Confiscation of goods - Section 130 of Punjab Goods and Service Act, 2017 - appealable order or not - HELD THAT - Considering the fact that the goods now stand released to the Petitioner subject to terms and conditions that have been fulfilled, the Court permits the Petitioner to raise all the points raised in the present writ petition in the statutory appeal to be filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 19th July, 2019. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods under Section 130 of PGST Act, 2017 without following Section 129 procedure.
2. Release of detained goods subject to payment of tax and penalty.
3. Failure to avail statutory remedy against the confiscation order.
4. Permission to raise points from writ petition in statutory appeal.
5. Condonation of delay in filing appeal.

Analysis:
1. The Petitioner approached the Court when goods were sought to be confiscated under Section 130 of the PGST Act, 2017, without following the procedure under Section 129. The Court directed the release of the goods subject to payment of demanded tax and 100% penalty, with a personal bond equal to the value of the goods to secure the fine. The hearing was adjourned due to a heavy docket, and the respondents were ordered to release the detained goods/vehicle.

2. On a subsequent date, it was noted that the goods had been released in compliance with the earlier order. The Assistant Commissioner had previously passed an order confiscating the goods, which was appealable. The Petitioner, due to the pending writ petition, did not utilize the statutory remedy against the confiscation order. As the goods had been released, the Court allowed the Petitioner to raise all points from the writ petition in the statutory appeal against the confiscation order dated 19th July, 2019.

3. The Court acknowledged that the Petitioner did not avail of the statutory remedy due to the pending writ petition. The Respondent/State counsel agreed that if the appeal was filed within 15 days, they would not object to the condonation of any delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, granting permission to raise the issues in the statutory appeal and allowing for the condonation of any delay in filing the appeal.

This judgment highlights the importance of following statutory procedures, the availability of remedies against confiscation orders, and the Court's willingness to permit raising issues from a writ petition in a statutory appeal, subject to certain conditions.