TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 147
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was intercepted by the respondent on the allegation that the goods were transported without valid documents. Initially, 03.07.2022, proceedings were issued in form GST-MOV-01 and form GST-MOV-02 for enabling the physical verification of the goods. Thereafter Ext.P9 notice in form GST-MOV-10 has been issued by the proper officer under the provisions of Section 130 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act (CGST Act) r/w relevant provisions of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act (IGST Act) calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the goods in question and the conveyance used to transport the goods shall not be confiscated under the provisions of Section 130 of the CGST Act r/w the provisions of the IGST Act and the amounts de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been initiated. It is submitted that on completion of the proceedings, the officer may decide to allow redemption of the goods on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation and merely because there is a provision for imposition of such fine, it cannot be said that the petitioner has any title to the goods, pending such adjudication. Specific reference is made in this regard to the findings of the Supreme Court in paragraph 3 of the judgment in Lexus Exports (P) Ltd. (Supra). 4. It is then pointed out that the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs (Import) Mumbai Vs. Jagdish Cancer & Research Centre; 2001 (6) SCC 483 has taken the view that the option to pay the fine in lieu of confiscation of the goods is a liability in addition to the dut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... stage. While holding so I am aware that some High Courts have taken the view that in the initial stage, proceedings of this nature can be levied only under Section 129 and not under Section 130 of the CGST Act. However, that question need not be gone into in this Writ Petition, as in the facts of the present case, the notice under Section 130 was issued only after physical verification. I am therefore of the view that the prayer to quash Ext.P9 is only to be rejected and I do so. In that view of the matter, the decisions cited at the bar by the Learned Special Government pleader regarding the existence of statutory remedies etc. do not require consideration. 6. However, the question remains as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se' or non-reference to section 67(6) of the Act is not determinative of the intent of the section. Since section 130 of the Act is a code by itself, the provisions of section 130 must be viewed independently to understand its scope. None can find fault if the legislature in its wisdom thought it fit to incorporate a provision into section 130 itself for release of the goods in lieu of confiscation at two stages - during adjudication and after adjudication. When the intention of a section is manifest from the words employed, it would be insidious to interpret the section differently, by referring to other sections of the same enactment. Absence of the words provisional release or absence of reference to section 67(6) of the Act is not deter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e aforesaid decision arose on an issue under section 129 of the Act and in the process of distinction, a passing reference alone was made to section 130. In such a view of the matter, I am not persuaded to follow the said judgment. 29. In the decision in Special Civil Application No.4043 of 2020 by the High Court of Gujarat in Kannan v. State of Gujarat, though it was observed that the competent authority has the power to pass an order of provisional release of goods, subject to certain terms and conditions, this Court is of the view that section 130(2) contemplates a release not provisional or absolute but a release peculiar to the Act during the course of adjudication. Further, the provisions of section 125 of the Customs Act though co....