Challenge to GST Goods Confiscation Dismissed, Petitioner Granted Right to Appeal Under Section 107 with Time Exclusion Provision

HC dismissed the writ petition regarding GST goods confiscation, granting petitioner liberty to challenge the order under Section 107 of Karnataka GST Act. The court allowed exclusion of time spent during proceedings for limitation calculation, keeping all substantive contentions open for future legal challenge.

---

---

Issues involved:
The petitioner sought to set aside an order passed u/s 130 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, u/s 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and u/s 11 of the GST (Compensation to States) Act, 2017, regarding confiscation of goods and conveyance for penalty and fine.

Judgment Summary:

1. The petitioner requested to overturn the impugned order dated 05.02.2021 passed u/s 130 of various GST Acts for confiscation of goods and conveyance. The court noted that for the same petitioner in different periods, previous writ petitions were disposed of with liberty to avail remedy u/s 107 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court disposed of the current petition, granting liberty to challenge the impugned order under Section 107, and allowing exclusion of time spent during the proceedings for limitation calculation.

2. The court referred to the order in a previous case involving the same petitioner and granted liberty to challenge the impugned order in accordance with Section 107 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner was allowed to seek exclusion of time during the present proceedings for limitation calculation. The petition was disposed of with liberty for the petitioner to avail substantive remedy against the impugned order.

3. The judgment kept all contentions open, providing the petitioner with the opportunity to challenge the impugned order in accordance with Section 107 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner was granted liberty to avail substantive remedy against the order, with the observation that time spent during the proceedings could be excluded for limitation calculation. The petition was disposed of, allowing the petitioner to challenge the impugned order.

---