Transporter Wins Interim Relief in GST Dispute, Goods Released After Tax and Penalty Deposit Under Sections 129 and 130

HC ruled on GST tax dispute involving goods transportation. Court granted interim relief by directing release of confiscated goods and vehicle, subject to petitioner depositing tax and penalty amounts and furnishing a bond. The decision centered on interpreting Sections 129 and 130 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, balancing regulatory compliance with procedural fairness.

---

---

Issues:
1. Confiscation and detention of goods and conveyance.
2. Application of Section 129 and Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
3. Interim relief for release of goods and vehicle.
4. Imposition of penalty, fine, and tax charges.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought to challenge the orders dated 27.05.2022 in FORM GST MOV-11 and 08.05.2022 in FORM GST MOV-6, leading to the confiscation and detention of their goods and conveyance. The central issue revolved around the interpretation and application of Section 129 and Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 concerning the powers exercisable under these provisions. The petitioner's goods were confiscated while being transported to the buyer, resulting in the issuance of orders demanding tax, penalty, and fine. The court noted the importance of addressing the interaction between the mentioned sections and the nature of powers granted therein.

The court acknowledged a similar case, Special Civil Application No. 8353 of 2012, which was scheduled for further proceedings. The prayer for interim relief regarding the release of the petitioner's goods and vehicle was considered in line with the conditions imposed in the aforementioned order dated 01.07.2022 in the mentioned Special Civil Application. The impugned order detailed the penalty, fine, and tax amounts demanded from the petitioner, totaling significant sums.

In granting interim relief, the court directed the respondents to release the confiscated goods and conveyance upon the petitioner meeting specific conditions. These conditions included depositing the tax and penalty amounts, as well as furnishing a bond towards the fine. Once the petitioner complied with these conditions, the authorities were instructed to release the goods and conveyance promptly. The judgment provided a structured approach to addressing the issues raised by the petitioner, ensuring a fair consideration of the legal aspects involved in the confiscation and subsequent release of the goods and vehicle.

---