TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Deposit requirement for release of confiscated vehicle modified to Rs.2,00,000 deposit; vehicle to be released within one week.</h1> Sub-section (8) requires an additional deposit of 20% of disputed tax over the amount under sub-section (6) of Section 107; sub-section (6) requires 10% ... Deposit requirement for release of confiscated goods - seized vehicle without strict compliance with Section 112(8) - Contempt for disobedience of court order - Appellate Tribunal not constituted maintainability of writ - HELD THAT:- Sub-section (8) of Section 112 mandates payment of 20% of the disputed tax in addition to the amount already deposited under sub-section (6) of Section 107 of the Act. Subsection (6) of Section 107 mandates deposit of 10% of the disputed tax before the Appellate Authority for pursuing an appeal under the said provision. It is submitted that no such deposit was made in the appeal arising out of the order passed under Section 130 of the Act. Having regard to the pendency of the larger issue in the writ petition, we deem it appropriate to interfere with the interim order only to the limited extent of modifying the direction by requiring the respondent/petitioner to deposit a sum of ₹2,00,000/- before the Adjudicating Authority, while complying with the remaining conditions imposed by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 02.04.2025. The Appellate Authorities are directed to release the vehicle within one week from the date of deposit of ₹2,00,000/- as directed above. The other conditions imposed by the learned Single Judge shall continue to operate till the disposal of the writ petition. Insofar as the contempt petition alleging disobedience of the order dated 02.04.2025 is concerned, we notice that the direction for release of the vehicle was subject to the complainant executing an indemnity bond. Undisputedly, the complainant has not complied with the said condition. In the absence of compliance with the condition required to be fulfilled by the complainant himself, the contempt petition is misconceived at this stage. In view of the order passed above modifying the order complained of, the contempt petition does not survive for further consideration. Accordingly, it stands disposed of. Issues: (i) Whether the interim order directing release of the seized vehicle without strict compliance with Section 112(8) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is legally sustainable; (ii) Whether the contempt petition alleging disobedience of the interim order dated 02.04.2025 is maintainable.Issue (i): Whether the interim release of the vehicle complied with the deposit requirement under Section 112(8) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.Analysis: Section 112(8) mandates deposit of 20% of the disputed tax in addition to the deposit required under Section 107(6), which together amount to 30% of the disputed tax for purposes of appeal. The adjudicating order under Section 130 quantified tax and penalty in respect of the vehicle at Rs. 6,01,304/-. The Single Judge had directed release of the vehicle on furnishing an indemnity bond for Rs. 2,00,000/-. The Court examined whether the indemnity bond as directed conformed with the statutory deposit threshold in sub-section (8) of Section 112, and considered the pendency of the writ petition and the need to protect revenue while affording interim relief.Conclusion: The Single Judge's direction was not in strict conformity with Section 112(8), but the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was held to substantially meet the 30% deposit requirement for the vehicle. The interim order was modified to require deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/- before the Adjudicating Authority, with the remaining conditions of the Single Judge's order to continue; the Appellate Authorities were directed to release the vehicle within one week of such deposit.Issue (ii): Whether the contempt petition for alleged disobedience of the interim order dated 02.04.2025 is maintainable.Analysis: The contempt claim depended on non-compliance with the condition imposed by the interim order, namely execution of the indemnity bond by the complainant. The Court noted that the complainant had not complied with that condition; the Court also modified the earlier order in light of statutory requirements and directed deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/- as a condition for release.Conclusion: The contempt petition is misconceived at this stage because the complainant had not fulfilled the condition incumbent upon him; in view of the modification of the impugned order, the contempt petition does not survive and stands disposed of.Final Conclusion: The writ appeal is disposed of subject to modification of the interim order by directing deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/- and continuation of other conditions; the contempt petition is disposed of as not maintainable in the circumstances.Ratio Decidendi: Where an Appellate Tribunal under the GST statute is not constituted and a writ court grants interim release of seized goods, such interim relief must conform to the deposit obligations prescribed by Section 112(8) (aggregate 30% deposit) unless a substituted security/amount is shown to sufficiently meet that statutory requirement.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
