Seizure of goods and maintainability of petitions in absence of invoices and proof of payment; interim deposit ordered and notice issued.

Maintainability of a petition challenging seizure of goods was examined with emphasis on availability of alternative remedies and evidentiary shortcomings; appellants failed to produce bills of supply, tax invoices or proof of payment, undermining transactional claims. A prior High Court direction allowed sale of perishable goods within 45 days and conditional release of vehicle on interim payment and bond; the Supreme Court permitted exemption applications subject to an interim deposit of Rs.5,98,000 in each matter and issuance of notice to respondents. The summary focuses on procedural maintainability, evidentiary burden, and conditional interim relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether interim protection from auction of goods and issuance of notice should be granted subject to deposit of the penalty amount specified by the authority.

Analysis: Exemption applications were allowed and the petitioners were directed to deposit Rs.5,98,000 in each matter with the Registry within one week. Upon deposit, notice to the respondents is to be issued and the matters will be listed for further hearing. Pending the deposit, the department is restrained from proceeding with the auction of the goods (areca nuts). Dasti service is permitted to effect service in addition to ordinary modes.

Conclusion: Interim protection from auction is granted subject to the petitioners depositing Rs.5,98,000 in each matter within one week; notice to respondents to be issued and matters to be listed for further hearing after deposit in favour of Assessee.

---