Court quashes confiscation order, grants hearing, directs deposit & bank guarantee for goods release.

The court quashed the final order of confiscation and remanded the matter for a fresh decision after granting a hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to deposit a specified amount towards tax and penalty and furnish a bank guarantee to protect the goods from damage, allowing for the release of goods and the vehicle. The adjudication proceedings were to continue independently, balancing the interests of both parties by imposing financial obligations on the petitioner while safeguarding the goods during the process.

---

---

Issues:
1. Detention and confiscation of goods under GST Act
2. Legality of detention and seizure of goods
3. Opportunity of hearing in confiscation proceedings

Analysis:

Issue 1: Detention and confiscation of goods under GST Act
The petitioner filed a writ application seeking relief from the detention order and confiscation notice of goods transported in a vehicle intercepted by GST authorities. The authorities had initially passed orders under Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act, determining tax and penalty and issuing a notice for confiscation. Subsequently, a final order of confiscation was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The court quashed the final order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision after granting a hearing to the petitioner.

Issue 2: Legality of detention and seizure of goods
The petitioner contended that the detention and seizure of goods were illegal as all necessary documents, including the E-Way bill, were with the driver during the interception. The petitioner argued that there was no evidence of any breach of the GST Act or Rules. On the other hand, the respondent authorities highlighted irregularities observed during the seizure, such as the absence of valid documents for the goods in transit and defective documents submitted. The authorities emphasized the need for further verification regarding the genuineness of the goods and documents.

Issue 3: Opportunity of hearing in confiscation proceedings
The court decided not to interfere with the ongoing adjudication of the confiscation proceedings under Section 130 of the GST Act. However, considering the interests of both the petitioner and the State, the court directed the petitioner to deposit a specified amount towards tax and penalty and furnish a bank guarantee to protect the goods from damage. The court ordered the release of goods and the vehicle upon compliance with the deposit and bank guarantee requirements, emphasizing that the adjudication proceedings would continue independently.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ application by granting relief to the petitioner to safeguard the goods while allowing the confiscation proceedings to proceed in accordance with the law. The judgment balanced the interests of both parties by imposing financial obligations on the petitioner to secure the release of the goods and the vehicle pending the final outcome of the adjudication process.

---