Back
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
State Tax Officer, Investigation Branch-I, State GST Department – Appellant
Versus
Y. Balakrishnan – Respondent
Key Points: - The judgment holds that release of goods in lieu of confiscation is contemplated at two stages: during adjudication under section 130(2) and post-adjudication under section 130(3) (!) (!) - At the time of release under section 130(2), the owner is to pay only the fine in lieu of confiscation; tax, penalty, and other charges are payable after adjudication (!) - The basis for calculating the fine in lieu of confiscation is the market value defined in section 2(73), not the maximum retail price; if invoice value is not disputed, it can be taken as market value, otherwise adjudication determines it (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The two-stage release mechanism is designed to avoid delays and perishable goods being detained;provisional release per se is not provisional in the sense of a separate provision but a release during adjudication (!) (!) (!) - The text clarifies that section 130(2) applies before the order of confiscation is issued, i.e., during adjudication, while section 130(7) contemplates disposal after confiscation with three months’ time to pay fine (!) (!) (!)
ORDER :
An interim order is the cause of this review petition. By the interim order, this Court directed release of goods that were the subject matter of proceedings for confiscation under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for brevity ‘the Act’). A review petition against the interim order is preferred by the State Tax Officer, leading to seminal questions on the scope and ambit of the powers of release of goods while the confiscation proceedings are going on.
2. The primary question for consideration is whether section 130(2) of the Act contemplates the release of goods by payment of fine in lieu of confiscation, even before orders of confiscation are issued. In addition, an incidental question that arises is on the quantum payable as fine in lieu of confiscation.
3. The genesis of the dispute emerges from an inspection conducted by the officers of the Kerala State GST Department on 03-08-2021, who seized, as per Rule 139(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, (for brevity ‘the Rules’), beedis, stored by the respondent in this review petition in his d
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
