2023 (8) TMI 1406

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nsel for the petitioner placed on record the judgment rendered by Division Bench of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in an identical case. 4. Placing reliance on an interim order granted by Division Bench of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that de hors the authority having confiscated the goods under Section 130 of the Goods and Services Tax Act (hereinafter referred as 'GST Act' for brevity). The Division Bench of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in an identical case has ordered to release the goods subject to party depositing penalty, fine, taxes and other charges, as demanded by the authority. Referring to this interim order, he would contend that petitioner is ready to comply the m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oes not indicate that the seizure of goods post confiscation, cannot be released at all. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the Judgment cited was inclined to interfere with the order of the High Court as the release of goods was found to be without compliance of requisite conditions predicated in Section 67(6) of the GST Act. Therefore, principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra, has no application to the interim prayer sought in the captioned petition. 8. Now two Division Bench Judgments, which are relied by the petitioner, are squarely applicable to the present case on hand. In both the Judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, the goods were detained applying the provision of Section 130 of GST A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iscretion is vested with the Officer to reduce that 15 days. 10. Now if these significant details are looked into, the concerned authority who has detained the goods way back in December-2022, has not taken any steps to deal with the perishable goods, which is of course detrimental, not only to the owner of the goods, but also detrimental to the State, as it is likely to lose better price, if auction is not done as indicated in the proviso. The contention of learned AGA that since appeal was preferred and there was an interim order and therefore, the concerned authority has not dealt with the goods seized as indicated in the proviso to Section 129(6) of the GST Act, cannot be acceded to. His argument that moment appeal is preferred and the....