Court clarifies GST Act on goods detention/seizure, stresses procedural fairness, grants interim relief for immediate release.

The court addressed the interpretation of Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act regarding the detention and seizure of goods, emphasizing procedural requirements and the necessity of providing an opportunity to be heard before determining tax, interest, or penalty. Noting a procedural discrepancy in the case, the court granted interim relief to the petitioner, directing the immediate release of the seized goods and vehicle upon depositing a specified amount. The court highlighted the urgency due to the perishable nature of the goods and emphasized compliance with legal provisions in such cases.

---

---

Issues involved:
Interpretation of Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act, release of seized goods, compliance with procedural requirements, interim relief.

Interpretation of Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act:
The judgment addresses the interpretation of Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act concerning the detention and seizure of goods in transit. The court notes that under Section 129, the proper officer must issue a notice specifying the tax and penalty payable before passing an order for payment. It is emphasized that no determination of tax, interest, or penalty can be made without giving the concerned person an opportunity to be heard. The court observes a discrepancy in the present case where a show-cause notice under Section 130 was issued without following the procedural requirements of Section 129. This raises concerns as the goods in question are perishable, highlighting the urgency of the matter.

Release of seized goods:
The judgment focuses on the release of goods seized by the GST officers during transit. The petitioner, engaged in the business of betel nuts and a registered dealer under the GST Act, had his consignment detained in Gujarat while en route from Karnataka to Delhi/Haryana. The court orders the release of the goods upon the petitioner depositing a specified amount with the department. This decision is supported by a previous order from a co-ordinate Bench of the Court, emphasizing the need for compliance with legal provisions in such cases.

Compliance with procedural requirements:
The judgment highlights the importance of following procedural requirements under the GST Act. It notes that the detention order issued lacked compliance with the necessary procedures, particularly under Sections 129 and 130. The court points out that the show-cause notice for confiscation of goods was issued under Section 130 without adhering to the prerequisites of Section 129. This procedural lapse influences the court's decision to grant interim relief to the petitioner, directing the immediate release of the detained goods and the vehicle upon depositing the specified amount.

Interim Relief:
In granting interim relief, the court directs the respondent authorities to release the seized goods and the vehicle upon the petitioner depositing the required amount. The court acknowledges the petitioner's strong prima facie case for interim relief, considering the perishable nature of the goods and the procedural irregularities in the detention and seizure process. The petitioner is instructed to file an undertaking to cooperate in further proceedings if the petition is unsuccessful. The matter is scheduled for further hearing to ensure compliance and resolution of the issues raised in the petition.

---