Court Orders Release of Confiscated Goods & Vehicle Pending Appeal under CGST Act

The court disposed of the writ application seeking certiorari and mandamus relief regarding the confiscation of goods and vehicle under the CGST Act, 2017. The court ordered the release of goods and vehicle pending appeal upon the writ applicants' agreement to pay 50% of the liability and provide a bank guarantee. The court emphasized the appeal remedy under Section 107 of the Act and balanced tax recovery interests with the writ applicants' right to appeal, considering the goods' perishable nature and prolonged detention.

---

---

Issues:
1. Writ application under Article 226 for certiorari and mandamus relief.
2. Detention of goods and vehicle under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.
3. Order of confiscation in form MOV-11.
4. Decision to auction goods and vehicle for tax recovery.
5. Appealability of the final order of confiscation under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017.
6. Entertaining writ application at the last minute before auction finalization.
7. Conditions set for releasing goods and vehicle pending appeal.
8. Payment of 50% liability to release goods and vehicle.
9. Disposal of the writ application based on payment terms.

Analysis:
1. The writ applicants sought certiorari to quash the confiscation order and mandamus to release goods and vehicle without security. The goods were detained under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 due to document deficiencies. Subsequently, an order of confiscation in form MOV-11 was issued.

2. The authority decided to auction the goods and vehicle for tax recovery, prompting the writ applicants to approach the court last minute. The court emphasized the appeal remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, despite the counsel's limitation argument for filing an appeal.

3. The State respondents highlighted the writ applicants' delayed action and the auction's off-set price exceeding the liability. The court proposed a payment arrangement for releasing the goods and vehicle pending appeal, requiring 50% payment and a bank guarantee.

4. Upon the writ applicants' agreement to deposit 50% of the liability and provide a bank guarantee, the court ordered the payment terms for release. The court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the case's merits, considering the perishable nature of the goods and the prolonged detention since September 2019.

5. The writ application was disposed of based on the agreed payment terms, allowing the writ applicants to appeal the confiscation order under Section 107 of the Act. The court's decision aimed to balance the interests of tax recovery and the writ applicants' right to appeal, ensuring the release of perishable goods while upholding legal procedures.

---