2020 (4) TMI 493

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he writ petition was against Ext.P3 order passed by the Assistant State Tax Officer, Squad No. V, State Goods and Service Tax Department, Ernakulam under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(for short, 'the Act') imposing tax and penalty to the tune of Rs. 1,15,333/- each. It was contended that the goods detained under Section 129(1) was only 'promotional materials' consigned by the supplier, not intended for sale, and it will not attract any tax liability as contemplated under Section 7 of the GST Act. It is complained that the impugned order was passed by the above said authority without properly appreciating the explanations offered in this regard. 3. It is pointed out that, against Ext.P3, th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ract proceedings for confiscation of the goods under Section 130 of the Act. However, direction was issued to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of Ext.P5 appeal, within a period of three months. Liberty was given to the appellant to seek release of the goods by furnishing necessary Bank Guarantee for the amount of tax and penalty imposed, pending disposal of the appeal. In the alternative, it was observed that, he has to wait for the outcome of the confiscation proceedings under the Act. 6. Contention of the appellant is two-folded. Firstly, he is impugning the judgment on the basis that the confiscation proceedings cannot go on in view of the provisions contained under sub-section (7) of Section 107. When the appellant had....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he impugned judgment. 9. Second question argued by learned counsel for the appellant is with respect to release of the goods. His contention is that, since there exists stay against recovery of the balance amount of tax and penalty in force and since the respondents are restrained by virtue of statutory provisions from proceeding against goods for confiscation, the goods are liable to be released pending finalization of the appeal, is the contention. We cannot accept such a proposition, because the provision under Section 129 is clear and unambiguous that the goods under detention can be released only on compliance with the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 67 of the Act, which is made applicable with respect to the condition u....