Authentic Metals Vs Enforcement Officer (Kerala High Court)
Kerala High Court held that provisional release is not contemplated under section 130 of the CGST Act. Also held that continued detention of goods is not legally sustainable, merely because the proceedings u/s. 130 is in progress.
Facts- The short question that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition, is with regard to the powers conferred upon the authorities under the Central Goods and Services Tax /Kerala State Goods and Services Tax, Act, 2017 to hold/retain the goods in transit, during the proceedings of confiscation under section 130 of the CGST Act. Incidentally, another question that arises in this case is whether Section 130(2) enables the authority concerned, to release the goods as a provisional measure, pending the adjudication proceedings, by accepting the fine in lieu of the confiscation proposed in the notice issued in Form MOV-10.
Conclusion- Held that even though the petitioner sought provisional release of the said goods on payment of confiscation of goods, I am of the view that, since I found that the provisional release is not contemplated under section 130, the said prayer cannot be granted. However, I have already found that the continued detention of the goods is not legally sustainable, merely because of the reason that proceedings under section 130 of the Act is in progress. In the absence of any valid order of detention, the respondents cannot hold the possession of the goods. In such circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 to 3 to release the goods of the petitioner forthwith, upon the petitioner furnishing a simple bond, as it was found that the detention of the aforesaid goods and conveyance by the respondents are not supported by any statutory provisions.
