Exporters Get Conditional Relief: GST Seizure Rules Balanced with Procedural Safeguards Under Sections 129 and 130

In a case involving GST Act sections 129 and 130, the HC addressed seizure of export goods during transportation. The court granted interim relief for goods and vehicle release, subject to specific conditions including penalty deposit, bank guarantee, and compliance with adjudication proceedings. The ruling emphasized procedural compliance and provided a conditional framework for goods release while maintaining regulatory oversight.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the seizure and confiscation of goods under section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the subsequent passing of an order under section 130 of the Act.

Seizure and Confiscation of Goods (u/s 129):
The petitioner had purchased 25,000 k.gms. of Ground Nut seeds for export to the Philippines. The goods were being transported from Gadu to Chennai port when they were intercepted and seized by the authorities under section 129 of the Act. The petitioner contended that the authorities did not follow the proper procedure, as Section 129 is an independent provision and the goods should have been released under this section before invoking Section 130.

Jurisdictional Issue:
The petitioner argued that the authorities acted without jurisdiction by first seizing the goods under section 129 and then proceeding to pass an order under section 130 without providing the petitioner the benefits of release under section 129. The petitioner also cited previous cases where similar interim reliefs were granted by the court in similar circumstances.

Interim Relief and Conditions:
The petitioner sought interim relief for the release of the goods and the vehicle truck. The court directed the release of the goods and the vehicle upon certain conditions. These conditions included the deposit of penalty amount, furnishing of a bank guarantee, providing a bond, depositing fine for confiscation of goods and conveyance, filing an undertaking disclosing business address, and cooperating in the adjudication proceedings.

Compliance and Consequences:
The court clarified that non-compliance with any of the conditions would result in the interim relief being vacated. It was also mentioned that any amount already paid towards penalty or fine would be adjusted. The authorities were directed to release the goods and the vehicle upon the petitioner's compliance with the specified conditions.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the court addressed the jurisdictional issue regarding the seizure and confiscation of goods under sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act. The court granted interim relief for the release of the goods and the vehicle subject to specified conditions, emphasizing compliance as a prerequisite for maintaining the relief granted.

---