https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390330 The court clarified that Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act operate independently, with Section 130 not reliant on Section 129. It emphasized that Section 130 can only be invoked directly in cases of clear intent to evade tax and that confiscation proceedings can proceed even after payment under Section 129. The court also ruled that physical availability of goods is not necessary for imposing redemption fines under Section 130. It highlighted the limited scope of High Court intervention under Article 226 to rectify procedural violations in confiscation cases. The court recommended translating GST laws into vernacular languages and establishing effective dispute resolution mechanisms to streamline tax implementation. en-us Mon, 23 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Mar 2025 14:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390330 The court clarified that Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act operate independently, with Section 130 not reliant on Section 129. It emphasized that Section 130 can only be invoked directly in cases of clear intent to evade tax and that confiscation proceedings can proceed even after payment under Section 129. The court also ruled that physical availability of goods is not necessary for imposing redemption fines under Section 130. It highlighted the limited scope of High Court intervention under Article 226 to rectify procedural violations in confiscation cases. The court recommended translating GST laws into vernacular languages and establishing effective dispute resolution mechanisms to streamline tax implementation. Case-Laws GST Mon, 23 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390330