The Kerala High Court has directed the GST department to release confiscated stock-in-trade gold on execution of bonds.
The bench of Justice Gopinath P. has observed that the goods, which were seized, are not hallmarked and were being taken for hallmarking at the time when it was intercepted by the competent officer.
Background
The petitioner/assessee has challenged the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST/SGST Act) as also the order of the First Appellate Authority confirming those proceedings.
Ā The petitioner has filed this writ petition on account of the fact that the petitioner is unable to file a second appeal before the Tribunal in terms of the provisions contained in Section 112 of the CGST/SGST Act.
Section 130 provides that any conveyance carrying goods without the cover of any documents or declaration prescribed under the Act shall be liable to confiscation. However, if the owner of the conveyance proves that the goods were being transported without cover of the required documents/declarations without his knowledge or connivance or without the knowledge or connivance of his agent then the conveyance shall not be liable to confiscation as aforesaid.
The petitioner submitted that the gold which is the stock-in-trade of the petitioner is under the custody of the department. In almost similar circumstances, the court had directed the release of the gold subject to a bond being executed along with sufficient security to the satisfaction of the officer. It is submitted that directions were issued taking into consideration the fact that even the State is not benefited by keeping the gold in its custody.
Conclusion
The court disposed of the writ petition directing that the quantity of gold seized from the petitioner shall be released on the petitioner executing bonds in such manner and form required by the state tax officer. The state tax officer being satisfied that the properties, which are offered as the security, are not encumbered and on the petitioner/owner of the property undertaking that the property shall not be alienated or encumbered till the culmination of the proceedings. The petitioner may approach the Appellate Tribunal as and when the same is constituted.
Case Title: Mr. Jerin T.J. Versus The State Tax Officer (Int.)
Case No.: WP(C) NO. 33378 OF 2022
Date: 12/09/2024
Counsel For Petitioner: K.Latha
Counsel For Respondent: Thushara James (Sr Gp)
