High Court decision on goods interception & seizure under GST Act Section 129 stresses procedural compliance

The High Court dismissed the petition regarding the interception and seizure of goods during transport under section 129 of the Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017. The Court emphasized the procedural requirements for obtaining release of goods, highlighting the availability of alternate remedies and the comprehensive nature of the legislation. It found the petitioner's communication insufficient and stressed the importance of complying with legal conditions for release, cautioning against bypassing statutory procedures and invoking the High Court's jurisdiction prematurely. The Court declined to interfere, emphasizing the need to follow proper channels for seeking relief.

---

---

Issues:
Complaint regarding interception of consignment during transport; Detention and seizure of goods and vehicle under section 129 of the Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017; Petitioner's request for release of goods without complying with statutory conditions; Dispute over the sufficiency of communication for obtaining release; Availability of alternate remedy; Jurisdiction of the High Court in interference with statutory procedures.

Analysis:
The petitioner approached the High Court complaining about the interception of a consignment during transport from their office to Gujarat. They claimed to be manufacturers of copper products, holding necessary registrations and dealing with duty-paid goods for over thirty years. The consignment was detained and goods seized due to the transporter's failure to generate required documents, hindering the petitioner's business operations and commitments to customers. The petitioner sought release of goods to avoid hampering exports and incurring losses, alternatively requesting the detention of the vehicle but release of goods.

The Court acknowledged the authority conferred by section 129 of the GST Act to detain, seize, and release goods in transit. It highlighted the procedural requirements for releasing goods under sub-section (1) of section 129, emphasizing compliance with specified clauses. While the seizure and detention were not challenged, the Court noted the mechanism provided by sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 129 for obtaining release, indicating that the petitioner was not without remedy or official consideration at that stage. The Court found the petitioner's communication insufficient to obligate officers to release goods, emphasizing the comprehensive remedy available under section 129, subject to readiness and willingness to comply with conditions.

Disagreeing with the petitioner's stance and citing disputes over factual matters, the Court emphasized the importance of approaching concerned officials with proper requests and readiness to comply with legal conditions for obtaining release. It declined to interfere in the writ petition, given the availability of alternate remedies and the comprehensive nature of the legislation. The Court dismissed the petition, cautioning against resorting to shortcuts and emphasizing the need to avoid frustrating statutory proceedings by invoking the High Court's discretionary jurisdiction without fulfilling legal requirements.

---