Writ appeal against confiscation under CGST Section 130 fails; Sections 129 and 130 held independent, no sequencing required

HC dismissed the writ appeal challenging confiscation of goods and conveyance under Section 130 of the CGST Act. It affirmed that Sections 129 and 130 operate as independent provisions and that initiation of confiscation proceedings under Section 130 need not be preceded by detention proceedings under Section 129. The HC held there is no statutory requirement for a sequential invocation of these provisions. Noting that the impugned order permits release of goods and conveyance on payment of penalty and fine within fourteen days, the HC found adequate interim relief available to the appellant and declined to interfere. 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.

---