Provisional release of seized GST goods is permissible during Section 130 confiscation proceedings on revenue-securing conditions.

Goods seized under GST law may be released pending adjudication even after confiscation proceedings are initiated under Section 130, provided conditions secure the revenue through bond and payment safeguards. The absence of an express reference to provisional release does not bar such relief where continued detention would defeat the legislative purpose. The communication rejecting provisional release was therefore quashed as based on an erroneous reading of Section 130. However, the show cause notice initiating confiscation proceedings was not interfered with, and those proceedings were left to continue in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether goods seized under the GST law could be released pending adjudication after initiation of confiscation proceedings under Section 130. (ii) Whether the communication rejecting provisional release and the show cause notice under Section 130 were liable to be interfered with.

Issue (i): Whether goods seized under the GST law could be released pending adjudication after initiation of confiscation proceedings under Section 130.

Analysis: The statutory scheme was read to mean that Section 130 does not prohibit release of goods during pendency of confiscation proceedings. The provision contemplates an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation at the adjudication stage, and also preserves the power to dispose of confiscated goods after giving an opportunity to pay fine. The Court held that interim release does not defeat the object of the provision because the revenue remains protected by bond and payment conditions, while continued detention until exhaustion of all remedies would be inconsistent with the legislative purpose.

Conclusion: The goods were held liable to be released pending adjudication on suitable conditions, and the rejection of provisional release was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the communication rejecting provisional release and the show cause notice under Section 130 were liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The communication refusing release was set aside because it proceeded on the erroneous view that no provisional release was permissible under Section 130. At the same time, the show cause notice itself was only the commencement of confiscation proceedings, and the Court declined to interfere with it at that stage, leaving the merits of the proceedings open for adjudication in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The rejection communication was quashed, while the show cause notice was left undisturbed.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded to the limited extent of securing release of the seized goods on bond and deposit of the quantified amount, but the confiscation proceedings were permitted to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods seized in connection with confiscation proceedings under Section 130 may be released before final adjudication on conditions that secure the revenue, and the absence of an express reference to provisional release does not exclude such relief where the statute's object is protection of the revenue rather than absolute deprivation of the goods.

---