confiscated under section 129
| Case Title | Sharoff Stell Traders vs State Tax officer Vallore |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Honorable Judges | Justice Anita Sumanth |
| Citation | 2022 (6) GSTPanacea 244 HC Madras WP.Nos.14811 & 14813 of 2022 and WMP Nos.14009 & 14010 of 2022 |
| Judgement Date | 14-June-2022 |
| Council for Petitioner | Mr. D Vijaykumar |
| Council for Respondent | Mr. C Harsha Raj |
The Madras High Court, bench of Justice Anita Sumanth, has held that upon receipt of Bank Guarantee by the owner of the goods, the goods shall be released forthwith by the Officer.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Brief Fact of the Case are that the petitioner had conveyed goods through a vehicle. The vehicles had been intersected and upon verification of the documents, the respondents claim to have found various discrepancies in the shipment of the goods and the documents accompanying the consignments. Orders of detention have been passed in both cases, proposing penalty for the non-compliances noted therein.
Here to note that the petitioner had properly filed objections to the proposals contained in the show cause notice however the authority rejected the order and effectively passed orders adverse to interests of the petitioners. The petitioner is willing to furnish bank guarantees equivalent to the amount of penalty quantified by the authority under show cause notices/impugned notices.
confiscated under section 129
COURT HELD
The Court held that it is revealed that the main allegation with regard to tax evasion is against the father of the petitioner i.e. Anil Kumar Arora who allegedly cleared goods without issuance of e-way bill and payment of GST and evaded crores of tax. The only allegation against the present petitioner is that he is an active accomplice to his father accused Anil Kumar Arora, however no prima facie case is made out against the present petitioner with regard to tax evasion.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at the bar so also considering the fact the petitioner is a young man pursuing his studies, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. However, it is expected from him to observe and follow the fundamental duties of a good citizen as enshrined in Article 51-A of the Constitution of India.
The bail application is allowed and it is directed and the petitioner shall be released on bail.
confiscated under section 129
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
From the above case we can conclude that as per Section 129 of the GST Act, where any person transports any goods or stores any goods while they are in transit in contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder and such goods are seized then they can be released on payment of the applicable tax and penalty equal to one hundred per cent Of the tax payable on such goods and, in case of exempted goods, on payment of an amount equal to two per cent. Of the value of goods or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less by the owner of the goods.
Download PDF :
For Reference Visit :