The confiscation proceeding initiated by the Deputy Commissioner, with respect to the truck, is not in contravention of the provisions of E.C. Act.
Section 130 of the CGST Act — Goods in Transit –- The revision is directed against the order dated 19.06.2020 passed by the court of the learned CJM rejecting the prayer for release of truck. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that by order dated 12.03.2020, the court below had ordered for release of 160 drums of bitumen in favour of the owner/ purchaser of the bitumen and rejected the release of the truck on the ground that there was no valid document for transportation of the goods on the truck. The court observed that Section 130 provides for confiscation of vehicle or conveyance found to be carrying goods without E-way bill. The confiscation proceeding was not initiated under Section 130 rather the proceeding has been initiated under Section 6-A(c) of the E.C. Act. The detention of commercial vehicle for a long period in the premises of the police station will not serve any purpose, as it will not only cause loss to the owner but also cause a loss of revenue to the State Exchequer due to non-pliance of the commercial vehicle.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court directed that the petitioner is at liberty to file an appropriate application, along with relevant documents, in the court. If the application is so filed, the court below shall call for a report from the District Transport Officer and the Investigating Officer regarding the genuinity of the documents and if the papers are found to be in order, the court below shall order for release of the truck on furnishing an indemnity bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- with two sureties of like amount each and subject to certain conditions.
The confiscation proceeding initiated by the Deputy Commissioner, with respect to the truck, is not in contravention of the provisions of E.C. Act.
Section 130 of the CGST Act — Goods in Transit –- The revision is directed against the order dated 19.06.2020 passed by the court of the learned CJM rejecting the prayer for release of truck. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that by order dated 12.03.2020, the court below had ordered for release of 160 drums of bitumen in favour of the owner/ purchaser of the bitumen and rejected the release of the truck on the ground that there was no valid document for transportation of the goods on the truck. The court observed that Section 130 provides for confiscation of vehicle or conveyance found to be carrying goods without E-way bill. The confiscation proceeding was not initiated under Section 130 rather the proceeding has been initiated under Section 6-A(c) of the E.C. Act. The detention of commercial vehicle for a long period in the premises of the police station will not serve any purpose, as it will not only cause loss to the owner but also cause a loss of revenue to the State Exchequer due to non-pliance of the commercial vehicle.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court directed that the petitioner is at liberty to file an appropriate application, along with relevant documents, in the court. If the application is so filed, the court below shall call for a report from the District Transport Officer and the Investigating Officer regarding the genuinity of the documents and if the papers are found to be in order, the court below shall order for release of the truck on furnishing an indemnity bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- with two sureties of like amount each and subject to certain conditions.