2021 (11) TMI 231 - HC - GST

Levy of tax and penalty - seizure of goods alongwith vehicle - Evasion of tax - HELD THAT - With regard to interim relief, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the finding recorded in the original order cannot be sustained inasmuch as the e-way bill that was generated was in terms of sub-rule (10) of Rule 138 of the GST Rules and the e-way bill was valid at the time of interception. It is contended that, therefore, since the goods are perishable in nature therefore, under Rule 140 of the GST Rules after obtaining the security, the goods may be released. It is provided that in case the petitioner pays the amount in terms of Rule 141 of the CGST Rules, 2017 to the authorities concerned, the goods shall be released forthwith. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order imposing tax and penalty under Section 129(3) of UPGST Act, appeal rejection, consideration of interim relief regarding release of seized goods.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a petition challenging an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner Mobile Squad under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act, where tax evasion was found, leading to the imposition of tax and penalty, along with the seizure of the vehicle and goods. The petitioner further contested the appellate order upholding the initial decision. The court acknowledged the gravity of the matter and granted time for the respondent to file a counter affidavit, followed by a rejoinder from the petitioner. The urgency of the case was highlighted by scheduling an immediate listing.

Regarding the interim relief sought by the petitioner, it was argued that the e-way bill generated complied with Rule 138 of the GST Rules and was valid during interception. Emphasizing the perishable nature of the goods, the petitioner invoked Rule 140 of the GST Rules, proposing the release of goods upon providing security. However, the Standing Counsel opposed this stance, citing Rule 141 as applicable for releasing perishable seized goods. After considering the arguments, the court ruled that upon payment in accordance with Rule 141 of the CGST Rules, the authorities must release the goods promptly.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses the challenges to the tax and penalty imposition under the UPGST Act, the rejection of the appeal, and the interim relief sought for the release of seized goods based on conflicting interpretations of the relevant GST Rules. The court's decision provides clarity on the applicable rule for releasing perishable goods and outlines the necessary steps for the petitioner to secure the release of the seized items.