Provisional release of seized gold denied once validly extended investigation and confiscation proceedings under GST had begun.

Where the investigation period had been validly extended under GST law, reliance on the original time limit to seek release of seized gold failed. The confiscation notice also showed prima facie material that the goods were dealt with without valid registration and without supporting tax invoices or other required documents. Once proceedings under Section 130 had commenced, provisional release under Section 67(6) was not available at that stage, and the proper remedy lay under Section 130(2). The request for provisional release was rejected and the writ petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seized gold was liable to be provisionally released on bond and bank guarantee despite extension of the investigation period and initiation of confiscation proceedings under the GST law.

Analysis: The investigation period under Section 67 stood extended by the competent authority, so the plea based on expiry of the original limitation period was untenable. The notice for confiscation disclosed prima facie material that the petitioner had dealt in gold without valid registration and without supporting tax invoices or other prescribed documents. Once proceedings under Section 130 had been initiated, provisional release under Section 67(6) was not available at that stage, and the statutory remedy during confiscation proceedings lay under Section 130(2).

Conclusion: The request for provisional release was rejected and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: When investigation time has been validly extended and confiscation proceedings under Section 130 have commenced, provisional release of seized goods under Section 67(6) is not available, and the party must pursue the remedy provided in Section 130(2).

---