Section 129(6) CGST Act: Transporters cannot seek release of detained goods on penalty payment, only owners can

The Madras HC held that under Section 129(6) of CGST Act, transporters cannot seek release of detained goods on payment of penalty or furnishing security - this benefit is available only to owners/agents/representatives of goods. The court distinguished between owners who can seek release of goods and transporters who can only seek release of conveyance upon payment of penalty or Rs.1,00,000, whichever is less. The court clarified that payment of 25% does not automatically entitle release of seized goods; appellate authority must decide based on prima facie case, financial stringency and balance of convenience. Petitioners were permitted to file appeals with applications for interim release.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Detention and penalty on consignments transported by road.
2. Interpretation of Section 129 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
3. Rights of transporter vs. owner/agent/representative in seeking release of detained goods.
4. Applicability of interim relief in appeals under Section 107 of the Act.

Analysis:
1. Detention and Penalty on Consignments Transported by Road:
The judgment addresses three writ petitions involving consignments detained by State Tax Officers for various reasons. The petitioners challenge the orders of detention and penalty imposed under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court notes that the petitioners intend to file statutory appeals challenging the impugned orders.

2. Interpretation of Section 129 of the Act:
The central issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 129, which deals with the detention, seizure, and release of goods and conveyances in transit. The court analyzes the provisions of Section 129(1) and (6) in detail. It deliberates on whether the benefit of seeking release of detained goods is limited to the owner/agent/representative or extends to the transporter as well. The court ultimately concludes that the transporter can seek release of the conveyance only, not the goods.

3. Rights of Transporter vs. Owner/Agent/Representative:
The court clarifies that the entitlement to seek release under Section 129 is restricted to the owner/agent/representative of the goods. While the owner or person transporting the goods can seek release, a limited benefit is available to the transporter, specifically for the release of the conveyance. The judgment emphasizes the careful delineation of roles and entitlements under the statute.

4. Applicability of Interim Relief in Appeals under Section 107:
The judgment further discusses the applicability of interim relief in appeals under Section 107 of the Act. Drawing on a precedent related to the powers of appellate authorities, the court permits the petitioners to file appeals accompanied by applications seeking release of the goods. The appellate authority is directed to hear the petitioners and decide on interim applications within a specified timeframe.

In conclusion, the judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of the issues related to detention, penalty, interpretation of statutory provisions, and the rights of different parties involved in the transportation of goods. It clarifies the scope of entitlements under the law and sets out a framework for seeking release of detained goods through statutory appeals.

---