2022 (12) TMI 1366 - HC - GST

Detention of goods alongwith conveyance - interaction, interplay and inter se application of Section 129 and Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - As could be seen from the impugned order, with regard to truck No. GJ-10-TX-0491, the penalty amount is Rs. 12,44,920/-. The fine and other charges are demanded to the extent of Rs.69,16,220/- and the tax is demanded of Rs.12,44,920/-. So far as confiscation of truck bearing registration No. GJ- 10TX-4546 is concerned, the penalty amount is Rs. 12,58,428/-, fine and other charges are demanded to the extent of Rs.69,91,276/- and the tax is demanded of Rs.12,58,428/-. By way of interim relief, it is directed that the respondents shall release the goods and conveyance of the petitioner, confiscated and detained pursuant to the notices, subject to the conditions imposed - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation and detention of goods and conveyance of the petitioner.
2. Application and interpretation of Section 129 and Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
3. Prayer for setting aside notices and orders demanding tax, penalty, and fine.
4. Consideration of interim relief for release of goods and vehicles.
5. Imposition of conditions for the release of confiscated goods and conveyance.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a partnership firm registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, transported copper scraps as per buyer's order. The goods were being transported in trucks with specific registration numbers when intercepted by respondent authorities, leading to confiscation and detention of goods and vehicles. Subsequently, notices and orders demanding tax, penalty, and fine were issued.

2. The key question in this case revolves around the application and interaction of Section 129 and Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017, concerning the powers exercisable under these provisions. The petition seeks to challenge the confiscation and detention of goods and conveyance based on the interpretation of these statutory provisions.

3. The court noted that a similar issue was addressed in a previous case, Special Civil Application No. 8353 of 2012, which is also pending. The court scheduled a returnable date for further proceedings. The petitioner requested interim relief for the release of goods and vehicles, which was considered in line with a previous order from 2012, imposing specific conditions for release.

4. The impugned order detailed the penalty amounts, fines, and tax demands concerning the confiscated trucks. Specific amounts were mentioned for each truck registration number, outlining the financial obligations imposed on the petitioner in relation to the confiscated goods and conveyance.

5. The court granted interim relief directing the release of the confiscated goods and conveyance upon the petitioner meeting certain conditions. These conditions included depositing the tax, penalty, and fine amounts specified for each truck, along with furnishing bonds towards the fines demanded. Compliance with these conditions would lead to the release of goods and conveyance by the authorities.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of confiscation, interpretation of statutory provisions, prayer for setting aside notices and orders, consideration of interim relief, and imposition of specific conditions for the release of confiscated goods and conveyance, providing a detailed analysis and granting relief subject to compliance with specified conditions.