2023 (3) TMI 108 - HC - GST

Seeking release of confiscated goods and vehicle - interaction interplay and inter se application of Section 129 and Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - HELD THAT - As far as prayer for interim relief is concerned regarding release of the goods and vehicle of the petitioner the same deserves to be considered on the same line and upon imposition of the similar conditions as done in SMIT DIPEN SHAH M/S LIBERTY PRODUCTS VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT 2022 (7) TMI 1364 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT where it was held that A prima facie case is made out for grant of interim relief. As could be seen from the impugned order the penalty amount is Rs. 2, 85, 120/-. The fine and other charges are demanded to the extent of Rs.15, 84, 000/- and the tax is demanded of Rs.2, 85, 120/- and fine in lieu of confiscation of conveyance of Rs. 2, 85, 120/-. It is directed that the respondents shall release the goods and conveyance of the petitioner confiscated and detained subject to the conditions imposed - application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation and penalty under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017
2. Interplay of Section 129 and Section 130 of the CGST Act
3. Release of goods and conveyance seized under Section 129

Analysis:
The petitioner sought to set aside a notice confiscating goods and conveyance, along with penalties imposed under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner, an unregistered dealer, transported brass parts from Jamnagar to Palanpur, intercepted en route by authorities leading to confiscation. The petition raised questions on the interaction between Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act, focusing on the powers granted under these provisions.

The court noted a similar case pending and set a returnable date for further proceedings. Regarding interim relief, the petitioner requested the release of seized goods and conveyance, paralleling conditions set in a previous order. The impugned order demanded a penalty of Rs. 2,85,120, fines totaling Rs. 15,84,000, and tax payments amounting to Rs. 2,85,120, alongside a fine for conveyance confiscation.

As an interim measure, the court directed the authorities to release the goods and conveyance upon specific conditions. These conditions included the petitioner depositing the tax and penalty amounts, furnishing a bond for the fine, and paying the fine for conveyance confiscation. Compliance with these conditions would lead to the release of goods and conveyance by the authorities, ensuring due process and adherence to legal requirements.