Court upholds rejection of vehicle release application on supurdnama; clarifies GST Act sections.

The court upheld the rejection of the application for the release of a vehicle on supurdnama, citing ongoing confiscation proceedings by the GST Department as the reason for the trial magistrate lacking jurisdiction. The court also clarified the interpretation and application of Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act, emphasizing the distinct purposes of detention and release under Section 129 and confiscation under Section 130. The petitioner was advised to seek relief through appropriate channels under the GST Act, affirming the lower courts' decisions as lawful and within their authority.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the rejection of the application for supurdnama of the vehicle.
2. Interpretation and application of Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act.
3. Jurisdiction of the trial magistrate in the context of ongoing confiscation proceedings by the GST Department.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the rejection of the application for supurdnama of the vehicle:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 05.02.2021, passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, which upheld the Judicial Magistrate's decision rejecting the application for the release of the truck on supurdnama. The petitioner argued that the vehicle had been idle for around nine months, leading to its deterioration, and thus should be released to prevent further decay. However, the court noted that the GST Department had already initiated confiscation proceedings, as evidenced by a letter dated 04.01.2021 from the GST Officer to the Police Station Komakhan. The court concluded that the trial magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for supurdnama due to the ongoing proceedings by the GST Department, making the rejection of the application legal and justified.

2. Interpretation and application of Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act:
The court examined Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act, which deal with the detention, seizure, and release of goods and conveyances in transit and the confiscation of goods or conveyances and levy of penalty, respectively. Section 129 allows for the detention of goods transported in contravention of the GST Act and their release upon payment of penalties. Section 130 addresses the confiscation of goods transported with the intent to evade tax. Both sections begin with non-obstante clauses, indicating that they override any contrary provisions. The court emphasized that these sections have specific objectives and procedures, with Section 129 focusing on detention and release, while Section 130 deals with confiscation. The court highlighted that the power to seize and detain goods is conferred under Section 129, not Section 130.

3. Jurisdiction of the trial magistrate in the context of ongoing confiscation proceedings by the GST Department:
The court noted that the GST Department had already initiated confiscation proceedings for the vehicle, as indicated by the letter from the GST Officer to the Police Station Komakhan. This factual matrix was not disputed by the petitioner, nor were the findings of the lower courts challenged as perverse or contrary to the record. Consequently, the court concluded that the trial magistrate lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application for supurdnama, as the matter was already under the purview of the GST Department's confiscation proceedings. The court upheld the decisions of the Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, finding no illegality or irregularity in their rejection of the application for supurdnama.

Conclusion:
The court disposed of the petition, reserving the petitioner's liberty to move an appropriate application before the concerned authorities for the release of the vehicle as per the provisions of the GST Act. The court emphasized the settled legal position that the learned Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge had acted within their powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in rejecting the application for supurdnama.

---