Yes, the Honorable Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of M/s. Kanchan Supplier v. State of Punjab and Ors. [Civil Writ Petition No. 1629 of 2024 dated 24.01.2024] held that the Taxpayer has the right to appeal against the Order. Further, the vehicle and the goods confiscated shall be released upon 25% of the amount mentioned in the impugned Order and the outstanding balance shall be secured by furnishing of bank guarantee.
The Honorable Punjab and Haryana High Court relied on the case of State of Punjab vs. M/s. Shiv Enterprises and others [2023{96} GST 120], wherein the Honorable Apex Court set aside an order passed by the High Court on the ground that it was premature for the High Court to quash the show cause notice issued under Section 130 of the CGST Act by invoking Article 226 of Constitution of India. Further, the contention raised that the consignee, being local as such, would furnish the surety bonds is not liable to accepted since the consignee is not before the bench and they cannot direct the said person to furnish any surety bonds. Hence, the writ petition was disposed of with the liberty to challenge the impugned Order.
Author’s Comments:
Post amendment made in section 130 effective from 01.01.2022 by virtue of Finance Act, 2021, it is extremely important for the department to conclude proceedings under section 129 by issuing MOV 9 to proceed to confiscate goods (issue SCN MOV 10). No confiscation is possible without the seizure of goods. Any proceedings under section 130 without concluding proceeding under section 129 (when section 67 is not invoked) by issuing an order under section 129 i.e. MOV 09 are in excess of the jurisdiction conferred to the proper officer and against the legislative mandate.
Seizure can be done only u/s 67(2) and 129(1). Confiscation ends if the physical custody over the offending goods is lost. Section 67(6) read with Rule 140 and section 129(1)(c) provides for provisional release of seized goods or conveyance.
Share this content: