Court Allows Appeal After Challenging 200% Penalty Under TNGST Act, Recognizes Mitigating Factors for Fair Legal Recourse.

The HC addressed a challenge to a penalty under Section 129(3) of the TNGST Act, 2017, amounting to 200% of the seized consignment's value. Despite the finality under Section 129(5), the Court recognized mitigating factors and allowed the petitioner to file a Statutory Appeal under Section 107 within 30 days, ensuring consideration on merits without limitation constraints. The Writ Petition was disposed of, permitting further legal recourse through the Statutory Appeal process.

---

---

Issues:
Impugned order under Section 129(3) of TNGST Act, 2017 - Penalty equivalent to 200% of seized consignment imposed - Validity of detention and seizure - Finality of issue under Section 129(5) - Option chosen by petitioner - Mitigating circumstances for not imposing penalty - Permission to file Statutory Appeal under Section 107 of TNGST Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order imposing a penalty under Section 129(3) of the TNGST Act, 2017, equivalent to 200% of the value of the seized consignment. The petitioner imported goods from Singapore and had a valid e-way bill for transportation to their factory. The vehicle carrying the goods was intercepted, and the goods were seized. The petitioner paid the penalty and cleared the goods but filed a Writ Petition after a significant delay. The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court decision criticizing the tax collection process. The respondent argued that the issue was final under Section 129(5) and not open for a Writ Petition.

The Court considered the arguments and the provisions of Section 129 of the GST enactments, which allow for detention and seizure of goods in transit for contravention of the Act. The petitioner chose option A for penalty payment instead of option C. Section 129(5) states that on payment of the penalty, proceedings are deemed concluded. The proper officer must issue a notice specifying the penalty within 7 days of detention and pass an order within 7 days of notice service. In this case, the penalty was imposed under Clause A, indicating finality.

Despite the finality, the Court noted mitigating circumstances, such as the unavailability of the driver's statement at the time of seizure. To balance interests, the Court permitted the petitioner to file a Statutory Appeal under Section 107 of the TNGST Act within 30 days. The appeal would be considered on merits without limitation constraints. The petitioner could obtain necessary documents from the Department for the appeal. The Writ Petition was disposed of with these directions, allowing for further legal recourse through the Statutory Appeal process.

---