Court orders release of seized goods upon payment of tax and penalty, emphasizes need for GST Tribunal

The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the release of seized goods upon payment of specified tax and a 100% penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the Act. The petitioner was also required to provide security other than cash or a bank guarantee for the remaining amount. The Court emphasized the importance of establishing a GST Tribunal for effective resolution of such matters and instructed the State counsel to provide a timeline for the Tribunal's constitution. The case is set for further proceedings upon the resumption of regular publication, indicating ongoing legal actions for a comprehensive resolution.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Challenge against order of proper Authority and first Appellate Authority due to non-existence of GST Tribunal.
2. Interpretation of liability under Section 129(1)(a) and Section 129(1)(b) of the Act.
3. Release of seized goods upon payment of specified tax and penalty.
4. Requirement of security other than cash and bank guarantee for remaining amount.
5. Inquiry into the constitution of GST Tribunal.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenges the order of the proper Authority and first Appellate Authority due to the absence of a GST Tribunal. The submission emphasizes the importance of the Tribunal for addressing issues of facts and law under Sections 112 and 113 of the Act. The counsel argues that the liability of the petitioner should be limited to tax and penalty under Section 129(1)(a) rather than Section 129(1)(b), asserting that the penalty imposition was erroneous. Additionally, it is highlighted that the goods in question have been seized since December 8, 2019.

The Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, rules that the seized goods will be released to the petitioner upon payment of the specified tax and a 100% penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the Act. However, for the remaining amount, the petitioner is directed to provide security other than cash or a bank guarantee. This payment is subject to final determination in the matter, indicating a provisional release of goods pending resolution.

Furthermore, the State counsel is directed to inform the Court about the timeline for the constitution of the GST Tribunal, underscoring the need for the Tribunal's establishment to address such matters effectively. The case is listed in the regular cause list for further proceedings after publication resumes, signaling ongoing legal proceedings and the need for a comprehensive resolution.

---