2021 (10) TMI 979 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of permission to release the Truck - illegal transport of Gold Steef Cigarettes - tax evasion - HELD THAT - From perusal of the records, it is quite clear that GST Department has already initiated proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle, which is evident from the letter dated 04.01.2021 written by the GST Officer, Mahasamund to the Police Station Komakhan. This factual matrix with regard to the request made by the GST Department to the SHO, Police Station Komakhan for confiscation of the vehicle has not been disputed by the Petitioner or he has not pointed out that the findings recorded by both the Courts below on this aspect of the matter are perverse or contrary to the record, as such, since the proceedings have already been initiated by the GST Department, therefore, the learned trial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the Petitioner for grant of supurdnama. Since the proceedings have already been initiated by the GST Department, therefore, the learned trial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the Petitioner for grant of supurdnama. Thus, the rejection of the application for grant of supurdnama by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahasamund vide its order dated 05.02.2021 arising out of the order dated 23.01.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mahasamund is legal and justified, therefore, the instant Cr.M.P is liable to be disposed of. In view of the above settled legal position, it is clear that the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class and the Sessions Judge have not committed any illegality or irregularity in rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner for grant of supurdnama within the powers conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the rejection of the application for supurdnama of the vehicle.
2. Interpretation and application of Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act.
3. Jurisdiction of the trial magistrate in the context of ongoing confiscation proceedings by the GST Department.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the rejection of the application for supurdnama of the vehicle:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 05.02.2021, passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, which upheld the Judicial Magistrate's decision rejecting the application for the release of the truck on supurdnama. The petitioner argued that the vehicle had been idle for around nine months, leading to its deterioration, and thus should be released to prevent further decay. However, the court noted that the GST Department had already initiated confiscation proceedings, as evidenced by a letter dated 04.01.2021 from the GST Officer to the Police Station Komakhan. The court concluded that the trial magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for supurdnama due to the ongoing proceedings by the GST Department, making the rejection of the application legal and justified.

2. Interpretation and application of Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act:
The court examined Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act, which deal with the detention, seizure, and release of goods and conveyances in transit and the confiscation of goods or conveyances and levy of penalty, respectively. Section 129 allows for the detention of goods transported in contravention of the GST Act and their release upon payment of penalties. Section 130 addresses the confiscation of goods transported with the intent to evade tax. Both sections begin with non-obstante clauses, indicating that they override any contrary provisions. The court emphasized that these sections have specific objectives and procedures, with Section 129 focusing on detention and release, while Section 130 deals with confiscation. The court highlighted that the power to seize and detain goods is conferred under Section 129, not Section 130.

3. Jurisdiction of the trial magistrate in the context of ongoing confiscation proceedings by the GST Department:
The court noted that the GST Department had already initiated confiscation proceedings for the vehicle, as indicated by the letter from the GST Officer to the Police Station Komakhan. This factual matrix was not disputed by the petitioner, nor were the findings of the lower courts challenged as perverse or contrary to the record. Consequently, the court concluded that the trial magistrate lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application for supurdnama, as the matter was already under the purview of the GST Department's confiscation proceedings. The court upheld the decisions of the Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, finding no illegality or irregularity in their rejection of the application for supurdnama.

Conclusion:
The court disposed of the petition, reserving the petitioner's liberty to move an appropriate application before the concerned authorities for the release of the vehicle as per the provisions of the GST Act. The court emphasized the settled legal position that the learned Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge had acted within their powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in rejecting the application for supurdnama.