9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LD THAT:- Though the learned special Government Pleader has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS LEXUS EXPORTS PVT. LTD. [ 1994 (1) TMI 153 - SUPREME COURT] , where it was held that, The proceedings of seizure and confiscation are proceedings in rem. Until the culmination of the adjudication it is difficult to envisage any right on the part of the respondents from whom they are seized to export them on the basis of a future title they expect to acquire by payment of fine , the said precedent has no application in deciding a matter arising under section 130 of the CGST Act. That case dealt with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, confiscation may be absolute if the goods in question are prohibited goods within the meaning of Customs Law. In the case of a domestic transaction like that in the present case, the question of ordering an absolute confiscation does not arise as even the provisions do not contemplate such course. The objection raised by the department is that there is an attempt to evade the payment of tax. There is no provision in Section 130 which prohibits the interim release of goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India. It is submitted that while the petitioner may claim that Ext.P9 is to be adjudicated without undue delay, he has no right to claim that pending such adjudication, the goods and the conveyance must be released to him. It is submitted that the provisions of Section 130 of the Act do not provide for any such contingency and it is only after the proceedings are completed can the question of redeeming the goods on payment of the fine in lieu of confiscation be considered. Reference in this regard is made to the provisions of Section 130 of the CGST Act and to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Lexus Exports (P) Ltd. Another; 1997 (10) SCC 232. It is submitted that proceedings for confiscation under Section 130 of the CGST Act are proceedings in rem and the petitioner has no title to the goods and the conveyance against which such proceedings have been initiated. It is submitted that on completion of the proceedings, the officer may decide to allow redemption of the goods on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation and merely because there is a provision for imposition of such fine, it cannot be said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re of the view that the prayer to quash Ext.P9 is only to be rejected and I do so. In that view of the matter, the decisions cited at the bar by the Learned Special Government pleader regarding the existence of statutory remedies etc. do not require consideration. 6. However, the question remains as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the interim release of the goods pending adjudication of the notice under section 130 of the CGST Act. Though the learned special Government Pleader has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lexus Export (P) Ltd.(Supra), I am of the view that the said precedent has no application in deciding a matter arising under section 130 of the CGST Act. That case dealt with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, confiscation may be absolute if the goods in question are prohibited goods within the meaning of Customs Law. In the case of a domestic transaction like that in the present case, the question of ordering an absolute confiscation does not arise as even the provisions do not contemplate such course. The objection raised by the department is that there is an attempt to evade the payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the learned Senior Government Pleader rendered by the Karnataka High Court in M/s.Meghdoot Logistics case, according to me, can be distinguished. Though the said decision observes in paragraph 21 that there is no provision for a provisional release of the seized goods under section 130 of the Act, this Court is of the considered view that the question of release under section 130(2) of the Act never arose for consideration in that case and the observations were only obiter dicta of the Court. The aforesaid decision arose on an issue under section 129 of the Act and in the process of distinction, a passing reference alone was made to section 130. In such a view of the matter, I am not persuaded to follow the said judgment. 29. In the decision in Special Civil Application No.4043 of 2020 by the High Court of Gujarat in Kannan v. State of Gujarat, though it was observed that the competent authority has the power to pass an order of provisional release of goods, subject to certain terms and conditions, this Court is of the view that section 130(2) contemplates a release not provisional or absolute but a release peculiar to the Act during the course of adjudication. Further, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
