2022 (12) TMI 1025 - HC - GST

Detention of goods alongwith conveyance - interplay and inter se application of Section 129 and Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - It is directed that the respondents shall release the goods and conveyance of the petitioner, confiscated and detained pursuant to the order No. 161 dated 03.05.2022 passed in FORM GST MOV-11, subject to the conditions imposed. The petitioner deposits the amount of tax of Rs. 1,35,216/- - The petitioner deposits the amount of penalty to the tune of Rs. 1,35,216/- - The petitioner furnishes bond to the tune of Rs. 7,51,204/- towards the amount of fine. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation and detention of goods and conveyance.
2. Interaction and application of Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act, 2017.
3. Demand for tax, penalty, and fine.
4. Consideration of interim relief.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought to set aside a notice and order leading to the confiscation and detention of goods and conveyance. The goods, Iron and Steel scrap, were being transported to the buyer when intercepted by authorities, resulting in confiscation and subsequent issuance of tax, penalty, and fine demands.

2. The key issue in this case revolved around the application of Sections 129 and 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the powers granted under these provisions. The petition raised concerns regarding the interplay and interaction of these sections in the context of the confiscation and detention of goods and conveyance.

3. The impugned order demanded a penalty of Rs. 1,35,216/-, a fine and other charges amounting to Rs. 7,51,204/-, and a tax of Rs. 1,35,216/-. The petitioner sought interim relief to release the confiscated goods and conveyance, subject to specific conditions, including the deposit of tax and penalty amounts, along with furnishing a bond for the fine amount.

4. The court directed the release of the goods and conveyance upon the petitioner's compliance with the specified conditions, mirroring a previous order in a similar case. The interim relief was contingent upon the petitioner meeting the financial obligations outlined in the order, ensuring the release of the confiscated items by the authorities upon fulfillment of the prescribed conditions.