The Assistant Commissioner vs. Ms Ravi Trading Company

Heard learned AGA for the appellants and learned counsel for caveator /respondent.

The material on record discloses that aggrieved by the detention and confiscation order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the appellants under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/under Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and seeking other relief, the respondent herein preferred the aforesaid petition. In the said petition, by way of an interim relief, sought for a direction to the appellants to release goods on the ground as same were arecanut, which are perishable in nature and immediate release of the same was warranted in the facts and circumstances of case. The said prayer for interim relief sought for by the respondent having been opposed by the appellant-Revenue, the learned Single Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order directing release of goods as under :

While coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the learned Single Judge took into account that the seized goods are arecanut, which were perishable in nature and though the order of confiscation was passed on 09.01.2023, even after lapse of 08 months 03 days, no arrangement was made in this regard, which would not only be detrimental to the respondent, but also to the appellants. The learned Single Judge also noticed that filing of an appeal, merely operates as a stay and recovery does not come in the way of appellants proceeding with NC: 2023:KHC-D:9850-DB the auction. Under these circumstances, the learned Single Judge deemed it fit to exercise his discretion by issuing necessary directions to safeguard the interest of the appellant-Revenue by directing the respondent to deposit 20% of the demand amount and also furnish a bond to the entire extent of demand. In this context, it is relevant to note that learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions, submits that in addition to deposit of 20% of the demand amount and executing a bond to the entire extent of demand, the respondent would also offer following immoveable property as a security and would not alienate, encumber and create any third party rights or charge over the said property, till disposal of the writ petition. The details of the immoveable properties are as under : Survey No. Area Owner name Location of property 140/1 03 ACRE, 02 GUNTA SRINIVAS S/O.SEETARAM HEBBAR. SIRSI HOBLI AND TALUK SIRSI, DISTRICT UTTARA KANNADA. NC: 2023:KHC-D:9850-DB

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and submission made on behalf of respondent that additional security by way of immoveable property to the value of Rs.1,43,93,400/- would be provided by the respondent as stated supra, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, who has exercised his discretion by directing release of perishable arecanut goods in favour of respondent, cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the present appeal. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeal and same is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

However, it is made clear that all rival contentions between the parties in the writ petition are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. Further, the respondent shall furnish security of the aforesaid immoveable property before appellant No.3, within a period of two weeks from today. NC: 2023:KHC-D:9850-DB

It is further directed that immediately upon respondent furnishing security of immoveable property before the appellant No.3 as stated supra, the appellants shall release the goods in question within a period of one week from the date of furnishing of security by the respondent.

Subject to the aforesaid directions, appeal stands disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE