2023 (11) TMI 662 - HC - GST

Detention and seizure of vehicle - scope of section 129 and 130 of CGST Act - it was submitted that exercise of powers under Section 129 and thereafter switching over to Section 130 and passing order thereunder without availing the petitioner the benefits of release of the goods under Section 129, could be said to be without jurisdiction. HELD THAT - Rule, returnable on 27.9.2023. 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 vehicle Truck No.GJ- 09-AU-2976, shall be released, provided the petitioner comply with the conditions imposed - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are the detention and seizure of a vehicle transporting tobacco, the confiscation of goods under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the jurisdiction of authorities in exercising powers under Sections 129 and 130.

Detention and Seizure of Vehicle:
The petitioner's goods being transported in a vehicle were intercepted under Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017, and subsequently confiscated under Section 130. The petitioner argued that the authorities acted without jurisdiction by not availing the petitioner the benefits of release under Section 129 before moving to Section 130. It was contended that Section 129 is independent of Section 130, and the authorities should have followed the proper procedure for seizure and release of goods.

Jurisdiction of Authorities:
The petitioner contended that the authorities did not follow the correct procedure when intercepting and confiscating the goods in transit. It was argued that the authorities should have first allowed for the release of goods under Section 129 before resorting to Section 130. The petitioner cited previous cases where similar issues were addressed by the court and interim relief was granted pending final hearing.

Court Decision:
The court directed the release of the petitioner's goods and vehicle on certain conditions. The petitioner was required to deposit the tax amount, penalty, furnish a bond, and pay a fine in lieu of confiscation of goods and conveyance. Once the petitioner complied with these conditions, the authorities were instructed to release the goods and conveyance. The court permitted direct service and listed the petition with a related Special Civil Application from a previous year for further proceedings.