TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Karnataka HC modifies release conditions for seized goods in valuation dispute, balancing goods release with revenue protection under Section 130</h1> Karnataka HC modified conditions for release of seized goods in a valuation dispute case. The court acknowledged the State's concern regarding defective ... Release of the goods seized - Validity of conditions imposed by the Ld. Single Judge for relase of goods - Legality and validity of restatement and reappraisal of transaction value - HELD THAT:- The concern of the State that the valuation of the petitioner being defective and actual valuation being much higher cannot be ignored though the aspect of valuation is also a matter for adjudication. However, it would be appropriate to put the petitioner on terms by ensuring that the valuation of the goods as determined by the revenue is realizable if the validity of the proceedings under section 130 of the Act are upheld. Conditions of the release order modified. The appeals are disposed off in terms of the modifying the orders of the learned Single Judge dated 25.09.2023. Issues involved:The judgment involves setting aside interim orders, legality and validity of restatement of transaction value, release of consignment, imposition of conditions for release of goods, proceedings under sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act, challenge to the order dated 25.09.2023, evasion of tax, release of confiscated goods, imposition of conditions, valuation of goods, furnishing of bank guarantee, confiscation of goods, and modification of the interim order.Setting aside of interim orders and legality of restatement of transaction value:The appellant filed appeals seeking to set aside interim orders passed in writ petitions, relying on re-appreciation of transaction value by the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes. They also sought a direction for the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to pass fresh orders on the legality and validity of restatement and reappraisal of transaction value. The main grievance was that the conditions imposed for the release of goods were onerous and needed modification.Confiscation of goods and imposition of conditions:The petitioner raised an invoice for the supply of areca nut and handed over the goods to a transporter for transportation. The conveyance was intercepted by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, leading to the detention of the conveyance and goods under section 129 of the GST Act. A report indicated undervaluation of goods, and despite ongoing proceedings under section 129, a confiscation notice and order were issued. Challenges were made through appeals under section 107 of the Act, leading to a writ petition against the order imposing conditions for release of confiscated goods.Challenges and contentions:The order dated 25.09.2023, imposing conditions for release, was challenged on the grounds that proceedings under section 129 should not have been abandoned midway. The conditions were deemed onerous, and the question of imposing conditions based on the value of goods was disputed. The revenue contended that there was an intention of tax evasion and that the release of goods should align with statutory provisions, requiring a bank guarantee for the full value of goods.Judicial decision and modification of the interim order:The court noted that the petitioner challenged the conditions for release of goods in the impugned order. It was held that the revenue could not challenge the interim order permitting release, and contentions regarding the insufficiency of imposed conditions were not entertained. The court modified the interim order, requiring the appellant to comply with specific conditions related to deposit, tax and penalty payment, bank guarantee, furnishing of security, personal bond, and affidavit within a specified timeframe.Conclusion:The appeals were disposed of by modifying the orders of the learned Single Judge dated 25.09.2023. The court emphasized that the observations and findings in the order were specific to the present appeal and should not be considered as a precedent for other cases. All contentions of the parties were kept open for future proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
