Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the interim order granting release of the goods and vehicle on furnishing security required modification when the challenge related to confiscation under Section 130 and not merely detention under Section 129.
Analysis: The writ appeals turned on the distinction between detention and release proceedings under Section 129 and confiscation proceedings under Section 130. The impugned orders challenged confiscation orders, and once an order under Section 130 is passed, title to the goods and conveyance vests in the Government under sub-section (5). In that situation, the mechanism contemplated under Section 129 is no longer available, and the adjudication regarding confiscation, valuation, tax, penalty, interest and fine proceeds exclusively under Section 130. The Court found that the interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge, which imposed conditions for release, were consistent with the governing legal position and did not warrant modification.
Conclusion: The request to modify the interim orders was rejected; the distinction between Section 129 and Section 130 operated against the appellants, and the challenge failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Once confiscation is ordered under Section 130 and title to the goods vests in the Government, release based on the detention regime under Section 129 is not available, and interim relief must conform to the confiscation framework.