Confiscation under GST can proceed independently of detention proceedings, and writ interference is limited on factual disputes.

Sections 129 and 130 of the State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 operate in independent and mutually exclusive fields. Confiscation proceedings under Section 130 need not await prior detention, seizure or release proceedings under Section 129, and may be initiated at the threshold where the facts justify such action. In writ jurisdiction, the Court declined interference on the complaint of absence of personal hearing, noting that written objections had been filed and considered and that factual disputes were better left to the statutory appellate remedy. The confiscation action was sustained, with the tax and penalty obligation maintained and the fine substantially reduced.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether confiscation proceedings under Section 130 of the State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 could be initiated without first resorting to the detention and release procedure under Section 129 of that Act; (ii) Whether the confiscation order was liable to be interfered with for want of personal hearing and on the scope of writ interference.

Issue (i): Whether confiscation proceedings under Section 130 of the State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 could be initiated without first resorting to the detention and release procedure under Section 129 of that Act.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of Sections 129 and 130 was examined in the light of the view that detention, seizure and release of goods in transit operate in a different field from confiscation. The reasoning adopted held that the two provisions are independent and mutually exclusive, and that Section 130 is not dependent on prior invocation of Section 129. The Court accepted the view that confiscation can be proceeded with at the threshold where the facts justify such action.

Conclusion: The objection based on non-compliance with Section 129 before invoking Section 130 was rejected, and the confiscation proceedings were held maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the confiscation order was liable to be interfered with for want of personal hearing and on the scope of writ interference.

Analysis: The record disclosed that written objections had been submitted and considered. In these circumstances, the Court declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction, observing that factual disputes and appraisal of the record were matters better suited to the statutory appellate remedy. The challenge on the ground of absence of personal hearing was not accepted as a ground for setting aside the order.

Conclusion: The order was not set aside on the ground of denial of personal hearing, and writ interference was declined.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of by sustaining the core action of confiscation and directing payment of tax and penalty, while substantially reducing the quantum of fine for the goods and the conveyance.

Ratio Decidendi: Sections 129 and 130 of the State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 operate in independent and mutually exclusive fields, and confiscation under Section 130 need not await prior proceedings under Section 129.

---