M/S Veer Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Bhakta Bir Pathak vs. The Union Of INDIA Through Finance Secretary, Ministry Of Finance Deptt Of Revenue

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the release of confiscated goods upon depositing Rs.2,71,000/- in addition to the penalty and fine amounts. This deposit was made considering Section 107 of the GST Act, which requires a pre-deposit of 10% of the total value for an appeal, a factor not initially considered. The release is subject to specific conditions: furnishing an attested photocopy of the proprietor's Aadhar Card, providing a cross-cheque for Rs.22 Lacs to be presented with court permission in case of default, and submitting an affidavit from a near relative vouching for the proprietor's identification and residence. The petitioner is also barred from claiming non-existence of the goods if they are released and subsequently sold. The revenue was directed not to auction the confiscated goods and conveyance until the next Friday. The Court opined that these conditions adequately protected the revenue's interest. The Civil Review Petition was allowed to the extent of these directions, and consequently, W.P.(T) No. 6746 of 2023 was allowed to the above extent.

Facts

M/s Veer Enterprises, a sole proprietorship firm, filed a Civil Review Petition seeking permission for the release of confiscated goods. Previously, this Court had directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.1,35,128/- as penalty under Section 122 of the GST Act, Rs.1,35,128/- as fine in lieu of confiscation of the conveyance, and the value of the goods assessed at Rs.27,02,560/-. The petitioner was to deposit the penalty and fine within two days and furnish a bank guarantee for the value of the goods. The petitioner's counsel stated that they would confine the relief to the release of confiscated goods and would pursue an appeal against the order passed under Section 130 of the GST Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of confiscated goods upon fulfilling certain conditions, considering the provisions of Section 107 of the GST Act regarding pre-deposit for appeal. The petitioner argued that they would confine their relief to the release of confiscated goods and would avail the alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the order passed under Section 130 of the GST Act. The revenue's contentions were not explicitly recorded in the judgment regarding the specific arguments made, other than the implication that the revenue's interest needed protection. The Court noted that Section 107 of the GST Act, which mandates a pre-deposit of 10% of the total value for appeal, was not considered in the initial interim order.