Tobacco Seizure Upheld: Procedural Noncompliance Prevents Release of Goods Under Section 67 of UPGST Act

The SC examined a GST case involving seized tobacco goods. The court classified tobacco as perishable and ruled that the petitioner failed to meet statutory release requirements under section 67 of UPGST Act. The petition was dismissed, with the petitioner advised to comply with legal deposit conditions for potential goods release. The judgment emphasized strict adherence to procedural guidelines for seized goods.

---

---

Issues involved:
Petition to quash seizure order under section 67 of UPGST Act and command to release seized goods.

Judgment Summary:

Issue 1: Classification of seized goods as perishable or non-perishable

The petitioner, a registered GST dealer, sought release of goods seized by the department under section 67 of UPGST Act. The department argued that the goods, identified as tobacco, fall under the category of perishable goods as per notifications issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. The court agreed that tobacco is considered perishable as per the notifications and ruled that the goods seized are indeed perishable, rejecting the petitioner's contention that they should be treated as non-perishable due to not being sold within a specific timeframe.

Issue 2: Compliance with release requirements

The petitioner claimed to have deposited an amount under section 74 (5) of the GST Act and requested the release of the seized goods. However, the department contended that the deposit made was insufficient for the release of perishable goods under section 67 (8) of the Act. The court found that the petitioner did not meet the requirements for the release of perishable goods and therefore was not entitled to a direction for release. The petitioner expressed willingness to deposit the necessary amount as per the law for the release of perishable goods, and the court stated that if the petitioner complies with the requirements, the claim will be processed promptly and lawfully.

Final Decision

The court concluded that the petitioner, not having fulfilled the conditions for the release of seized perishable goods, was not entitled to a court order for their release. The petition was closed, with the petitioner given the opportunity to comply with the necessary legal requirements for the release of the goods classified as perishable.

This summary provides a detailed breakdown of the judgment, addressing each issue involved in the case and highlighting the key legal aspects and decisions made by the court.

---