Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2018 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 66 - HC - GSTLevy of penalty - Confiscation of goods - invocation of Section 129 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - appellant obtained provisional release of the goods by furnishing bank guarantee for the applicable tax and penalty as spoken of under Section 129 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as also bond for production of the goods and furnishing security for the value of the goods as spoken of under Rule 140(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. Held that:- We notice from Section 129 that the confiscation proceedings under Section 130 would be possible only if the dealer fails to pay the applicable tax and penalty imposed by an order under Section 129(3). Confiscation is hence a coercive measure to ensure payment of the tax and penalty levied on a delinquent dealer; who otherwise is at threat of loosing the goods itself. Confiscation is not an automatic consequence ensuing from detention and an order passed under Section 129(3), of there being a contravention of the provisions of the Act or rules made thereunder - In the present case, the dealer was allowed release of the goods by furnishing bank guarantee for the tax and penalty. The dealer has also furnished a security equivalent to the value of the goods. There is, hence, no question of the applicable tax and penalty being not paid, since at any time the bank guarantee could be enforced. Penalty - Held that:- The production of goods under Rule 140 is only for invocation of confiscation proceedings, which would not be necessary if the security equivalent to the value of the goods is furnished under Rule 140, in case of detention under Section 129 - the non-production of goods as noticed in the order is not a ground for imposition of penalty. Appeal disposed off.
|