Goods and Vehicles Detained Under GST Act Section 130 Released After Payment of 200% Tax Penalty

The HC addressed multiple writ applications concerning detention of goods and vehicles under GST Act Section 130. In the lead case, a wholesale scrap trading company challenged the detention notice and sought release of goods valued at approximately Rs. 9,00,000. The Court ordered release of goods and conveyance upon noting the writ-applicant had already deposited a penalty of Rs. 3,25,454 (200% of tax amount). The release was conditional on submission of a written undertaking on oath and execution of a bond for any fine levied in place of confiscation. Similar relief was granted in connected applications where penalties had been paid.

---

---

Issues:
- Detention of goods and conveyance under Section-130 of the GST Act.
- Relief sought through a writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
- Payment of penalty and release of goods and conveyance.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves multiple writ-applications with similar issues being disposed of analogously. The lead matter, Special Civil Application No.4912 of 2022, sets the tone for the rest of the cases.

2. The writ-applicant, a Company engaged in wholesale trading of scrap and registered under the GST Act, faced detention of goods and conveyance during transit. The detention was based on a notice in FORM GST MOV-10, leading to confiscation proceedings under Section-130 of the Act.

3. The relief sought by the writ-applicant included quashing the impugned notice and order of detention, releasing the goods and conveyance, and granting an ex-parte interim order. The Court was urged to issue appropriate writs or directions for the same.

4. The Court noted that the writ-applicant had deposited a penalty amount of Rs. 3,25,454, which was 200% of the tax amount, towards release of goods valued at approximately Rs. 9,00,000. Considering this, the Court inclined to order the release of goods and conveyance.

5. The Court ordered the release of goods and conveyance upon the writ-applicant submitting a written undertaking on oath to the satisfaction of the authority concerned and executing a bond for any fine levied in place of confiscation. This approach was consistent across all connected writ-applications where penalties had been paid.

6. The judgment emphasizes the importance of compliance with penalty payments and procedural requirements for the release of detained goods and conveyance. It highlights the Court's discretion in balancing enforcement actions with the rights of the concerned parties under the law.

---