9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 226 - HC - GSTDetention and confiscation order - arecanut - perishable goods - HELD THAT - The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, who has exercised his discretion by directing release of perishable arecanut goods in favour of respondent, cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the present appeal. Accordingly, there are no merit in the appeal and same is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Appeal disposed off.
Issues involved: Appeal against interim relief order directing release of confiscated goods, consideration of perishable nature of goods, requirement of deposit and bond, additional security offered by respondent.
The High Court of Karnataka heard an intra Court appeal by the Revenue challenging an order granting interim relief in a writ petition. The respondent sought release of confiscated goods under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and other relief, citing that the goods were perishable arecanut. The learned Single Judge directed the release of goods upon certain conditions, including a deposit and bond requirement. The Judge noted the perishable nature of the goods and the delay in making arrangements post-confiscation. The respondent offered additional security in the form of immovable property. The Court found no illegality in the Judge's decision and upheld the release of goods, without interference. The Court clarified that all contentions in the writ petition remain open, and the respondent must provide security within two weeks. Upon providing security, the goods are to be released within one week. The appeal was disposed of accordingly. In summary, the judgment addressed the appeal against an interim relief order for releasing confiscated goods, considering the perishable nature of the goods, the deposit and bond requirements, and the additional security offered by the respondent. The Court upheld the decision of the Single Judge, finding no illegality in granting the release of goods under specified conditions.
|
