The mandate of Section 130 will be defeated if the goods are not released to the person who holds the invoice at the time of interception when the entire penalty, fine and tax are tendered.
Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017--- Goods in Transit -- The petitioner challenged order order of confiscation. The petitioner counsel submitted that the goods which were detained under Section 129 on 02.07.2021 were with the respondent for the last two months and in spite of the petitioner expressing his willingness to furnish security or even pay the tax and penalty, the respondent was not willing to release the goods, under one pretext or the other. In the meantime order under Section 130 has been issued on 07.08.2021. The petitioner paid the entire penalty, fine and tax imposed on 17.08.2021, inspite of paying the amounts due in lieu of confiscation, the respondent has not released the goods even till date. The respondent counsel submitted that goods can be released only to the owner of the goods and the respondent believes that the petitioner is not the owner of the goods. The court observed that under the GST Act the word 'owner' of a goods can mean the person who claims right to the goods by virtue of an invoice or by any other means which proves the right to claim ownership of the goods. It was the petitioner who had generated the invoices for the goods on 02.07.2021, immediately prior to interception of the goods since the invoice is in the name of the petitioner, he shall be deemed to be the owner of the goods.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court directed the respondent to release the goods covered by confiscation order under Section 130(2), at any rate, not later than 24 hours.
The mandate of Section 130 will be defeated if the goods are not released to the person who holds the invoice at the time of interception when the entire penalty, fine and tax are tendered.
Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017--- Goods in Transit -- The petitioner challenged order order of confiscation. The petitioner counsel submitted that the goods which were detained under Section 129 on 02.07.2021 were with the respondent for the last two months and in spite of the petitioner expressing his willingness to furnish security or even pay the tax and penalty, the respondent was not willing to release the goods, under one pretext or the other. In the meantime order under Section 130 has been issued on 07.08.2021. The petitioner paid the entire penalty, fine and tax imposed on 17.08.2021, inspite of paying the amounts due in lieu of confiscation, the respondent has not released the goods even till date. The respondent counsel submitted that goods can be released only to the owner of the goods and the respondent believes that the petitioner is not the owner of the goods. The court observed that under the GST Act the word 'owner' of a goods can mean the person who claims right to the goods by virtue of an invoice or by any other means which proves the right to claim ownership of the goods. It was the petitioner who had generated the invoices for the goods on 02.07.2021, immediately prior to interception of the goods since the invoice is in the name of the petitioner, he shall be deemed to be the owner of the goods.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court directed the respondent to release the goods covered by confiscation order under Section 130(2), at any rate, not later than 24 hours.