Tax Dispute Resolved: HC Upholds Goods Confiscation Under CGST Section 130, Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Administrative Action

Judicial outcome in a tax-related dispute involving goods transportation: HC rejected the writ petition challenging goods confiscation under CGST section 130. The court found no procedural irregularities, noting the petitioner's failure to deposit required amounts and furnish necessary guarantees. Petition was dismissed, interim order recalled, affirming tax authority's administrative actions.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order under section 130 of CGST for release of confiscated goods and conveyance.

Analysis:
The writ petition challenges an order passed under section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, seeking the release of confiscated goods and a conveyance. The petitioner, a sole proprietary firm dealing in Betel nuts and dried Areca nuts, sold goods to a registered company. Despite producing necessary documents during a vehicle inspection, the goods were detained, leading to the issuance of a notice and subsequent order under section 130 of the CGST.

The petitioner argued that the proceedings under section 129 of the CGST should not automatically result in confiscation under section 130. However, the court found no merit in this argument and noted that the petitioner did not avail of an interim order allowing for the furnishing of a bond in place of a bank guarantee. The petitioner failed to deposit the required amount within a reasonable time, even after being granted an opportunity.

The court emphasized that the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and must consider all relevant facts. Given the disputed nature of the transaction and the authority's findings regarding the recipient, the court declined to grant relief and dismissed the writ petition. The interim order was recalled, and a related application was deemed infructuous, concluding the matter.

---