2023 (8) TMI 835 - HC - GST

Registered Dealers Under CGST: Confiscation Order Upheld, Independent Application of Sections 129 and 130 Confirmed

MUHAMMAD SALEEM SHEMSUDEEN Versus THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ENFORCEMENT SQUAD, KSGST DEPARTMENT, THE STATE TAX OFFICER, THE SECRETARY TO TAXES, THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES & CUSTOMS

HC ruled that Sections 129 and 130 of CGST Act can be applied independently without mandatory sequential order. Confiscation order for goods transported ... Confiscation of goods alongwith conveyance - section 129 and 130 are dependent on each other or not - main contention in the writ petition was that the respondents were obliged to proceed sequentially through the provisions of Section 129 of the CGST Act before confiscating the goods under Section 130 of the Act since the provisions were dependent upon each other - HELD THAT:- The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge calls for no interference since it is well settled that the provisions under Sections 129 and 130 are independent provisions and there is no requirement in law that the proceedings under Section 130 should be preceded by the proceedings under Section 129. It is noted that, at any rate, Ext.P12 order passed by the first respondent permits the appellant to seek a release of the goods and the conveyance on payment of penalties and fine within a period of fourteen days from the date of the order. This provision should suffice for the appellant to obtain an immediate release of the goods and conveyance, pending final disposal of the appeal that he may prefer against Ext.P12 order before the appellate authority - Appeal dismissed. Issues:The issues involved in this case are the sequential application of Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act for confiscation of goods and conveyance, and the availability of alternate remedies under the GST Act.Sequential Application of Sections 129 and 130:The appellant, a registered dealer under the IGST Act and SGST Act, sold iron scrap to a GST registered dealer in Goa. The goods were intercepted during transportation and notices were issued for physical verification. Subsequently, a confiscation order was issued under Section 130 without invoking Section 129. The appellant contended that the provisions of Section 129 should precede Section 130 for confiscation. However, the Single Judge found that Sections 129 and 130 are independent and can be invoked separately. The High Court upheld this finding, stating that there is no legal requirement for Section 130 proceedings to be preceded by Section 129 proceedings.Availability of Alternate Remedies:The appellant challenged the confiscation order before the writ court, arguing that the order should have followed the sequential process under Sections 129 and 130. The High Court noted that the order allowed the appellant to seek release of the goods and conveyance upon payment of penalties and fines within fourteen days. The court held that this provision provides an immediate remedy for the appellant to obtain release pending the appeal process before the appellate authority. Therefore, the court dismissed the writ appeal, affirming the availability of alternate remedies under the GST Act for the appellant.