Sardari Lal vs. Deputy Commissioner Sales Tax Excicise And Taxation Deptt And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Sardari Lal, owner and driver of a vehicle, filed a writ petition challenging the seizure of his vehicle on March 5, 2019. The petitioner stated that the vehicle had been confiscated, but the confiscation order was not specifically served upon him. He also submitted that the vehicle could be released upon payment of a fine as per Section 130 of the CGST Act, and that the authority imposing the fine would also be responsible for releasing the vehicle upon payment. The petitioner sought the release of his vehicle, citing financial hardship.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner could seek the release of his vehicle by filing an application for payment of an appropriate fine, as permitted by Section 130 of the CGST Act. This option is available to the petitioner whether the vehicle has been confiscated or not, and irrespective of whether the confiscation order was served. The Court directed the appropriate authority to consider any such application strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 130 of the CGST Act within two weeks from the date of the order. This direction was made without prejudice to the petitioner's right to challenge the order of confiscation. The ratio decidendi is that statutory provisions allowing for the release of seized goods upon payment of penalty should be considered favorably by the authorities when an application is made in compliance with the law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of his seized vehicle upon payment of an appropriate fine, in accordance with Section 130 of the CGST Act, before or after confiscation? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the vehicle could be released upon payment of a fine under Section 130 of the CGST Act. He contended that the authority imposing the fine should also be the authority to release the vehicle upon such payment. The petitioner also highlighted that the confiscation order had not been specifically served upon him. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or respondent authorities. However, the court's direction implies that the revenue authorities would consider an application for release based on payment of fine.