2023 (6) TMI 489 - HC - GST

Jurisdiction - Seeking release of goods along with conveyance - exercise of powers under Section 129 and thereafter switching over to Section 130 and issuing notice thereunder without availing the petitioner the benefits of release of the goods under Section 129 - HELD THAT - In the facts and circumstances of the case, by way of interim relief, it is directed that the goods of the petitioner as well as vehicle bearing registration No. NL-01-AG 2782, shall be released provided the petitioner complies with the following conditions, (i) Either of the petitioners shall deposit with the competent authority of the respondents, total amount of penalty of Rs.1,94,031/-, the tax is not assessed by the authorities. (ii) Towards fine in lieu of confiscation of goods, either of the petitioners shall furnish Bank Guarantee of which is Rs. 14,31,519/-. (iii) Either of the petitioners shall further deposit the amount of Rs.1,94,031/- towards fine in lieu of confiscation of conveyance. Upon compliance of the aforesaid conditions, the goods and the vehicle both shall be released by the authorities. Non compliance of any of the aforesaid conditions, shall render the interim relief granted herein above, liable to be vacated.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to orders under section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 regarding seizure of goods and conveyance during transportation.

Summary:
The two petitions before the Gujarat High Court involve challenges to orders under section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. One petitioner is a driver of the vehicle, while the other is the consignor of the goods being transported. The GST authority intercepted the vehicle and seized the goods and conveyance under sections 129 and 130 of the Act. The petitions seek to set aside the impugned orders and request the release of the goods and vehicle.

The petitioners argue that the authorities confiscated the goods in transit without following the proper procedures. They contend that the exercise of powers under section 129 should have allowed for the release of the goods before invoking section 130. The petitioners also reference similar cases where interim relief was granted for the release of goods and conveyance under similar circumstances.

In response to the petitions, the court directed the release of the goods and the vehicle upon certain conditions. These conditions include depositing a penalty amount, providing a bank guarantee for the fine in lieu of confiscation, and depositing additional fines. Non-compliance with these conditions would result in the vacation of the interim relief granted.

The court set a returnable date for further proceedings and permitted direct service of the order. The petitions are to be listed with a related case from the previous year for further consideration.