Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (3) TMI 998

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he goods seized by the department are included within the definition of tobacco and, therefore, there exists no doubt in coming to the conclusion that the seized goods would fall within the definition of perishable goods. While taking such a view, it may be observed that the notification issued by the department on 13th June, 2018 is otherwise not under challenge. Learned counsel for the State also submits that the deposit made by the petitioner under section 74 (5) of the GST Act cannot be of any help to the petitioner s cause for the purposes to release of goods in terms of section 67 (8) of the Act. The petitioner having not complied with the requirement of release of seized goods i.e. perishable goods, is not entitled to any direc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s of section 67 of the UPGST Act. Petitioner claims to have deposited the amount in terms of section 74 (5) of the GST Act and sought release of the goods seized by the department. Since such request of the petitioner has not been considered, the petitioner is before this court. The department on the other hand contends that the deposit made by the petitioner is not sufficient for the release of seized goods as the commodity which has been seized by the department is a perishable good and by virtue of section 67 (8), and a different procedure for deposit of amount is contemplated than what is observed by the petitioner. According to the department unless the petitioner complies with the requirement of section 67 (8) of the Act he would n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that had the goods been perishable it ought to have sold in terms of rules 141 (2) within 15 days of the seizure and as it has not been sold, the goods ought to be treated as non-perishable. The contention raised in that regard is noticed only to be rejected. The determination of the goods being perishable or non-perishable would be in accordance with the applicable rules and the notifications and not upon any fortuitous circumstance whether the goods have been actually sold within 14 days or not. The goods which are treated to be a perishable under the rules and notifications would not be converted into non-perishable goods only because the authorities have not acted in terms of Rule 141 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates