Transporter Cannot Seek Release of Detained Goods Under Section 129 Tamil Nadu GST Act

The Madras HC dismissed a writ petition filed by a transporter seeking release of detained goods. The transporter claimed tax had been paid in full, but the court held that under Section 129 of the Tamil Nadu GST Act, 2017, transporters can only seek release of conveyance by paying penalty under sub-section (3) or Rs.1 lakh, whichever is less. The court noted that tax payment submissions should come from the assessee, not the transporter, and the assessee had not filed any affidavit supporting the claim. The petition lacked merit and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the interpretation of Section 129 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, regarding the detention, seizure, and release of goods and conveyances in transit.

Interpretation of Section 129:
The petitioner, a transporter, sought the quashing of an order of detention passed under Section 129(1) of the relevant Acts, but the court found the petition misconceived as Section 129 deals with detention, seizure, and release of goods and conveyances in transit.

Transporter's Entitlement to Seek Release:
The petitioner argued that the benefit granted to the owner of the goods under Section 129 should also be applicable to a transporter. However, the court interpreted that the entitlement to seek release under Section 129 is limited to the owner/agent/representative of the owner, not the transporter.

Role of Transporter in Goods' Release:
The court clarified that a transporter may seek release of only the conveyance, not the goods, upon satisfaction of statutory conditions. The court distinguished between the roles of various persons involved in the transaction of goods carriage and highlighted the limited benefit available to a transporter.

Decision on Writ Petition:
After detailed discussion and considering relevant provisions, the court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it along with connected miscellaneous petitions, without imposing any costs.

Separate Judgment:
The judgment was delivered by Honourable Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth.

---