Provisional Release of Vehicle Denied as Confiscation Proceedings Already Initiated to Be Adjudicated Within 10 Days | HC

Case Details: Peter Santhosh Rodrigues vs. State Tax Officer - [2025] 172 taxmann.com 174 (Kerala)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.
• G. Hariharan, Praveen. H., K.S. Smitha, B.R. Sindu, V.R. Sanjeev Kumar, Afna V.P., & Remya Murali, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Smt. Dr. Thushara James, Senior Government Pleader, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, an assessee engaged in goods transportation, had multiple vehicles intercepted and detained by the authorities for transporting goods without requisite documents. Initially, proceedings under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) were initiated for detention and penalty. However, suspecting tax evasion, the authorities subsequently initiated confiscation proceedings under Section 130 of the CGST Act. The writ petition was filed before the Hon’ble High Court challenging the denial of provisional release and seeking an early adjudication of the confiscation proceedings.

High Court Held

The Hon’ble High Court ruled that since notices for confiscation under Section 130 of the CGST Act had already been issued, the adjudication proceedings must necessarily culminate in a final order. While the Court did not grant provisional release of the vehicles, it acknowledged the urgency of the matter and directed the authorities to conclude the confiscation proceedings within ten days. The petitioner was instructed to appear before the respondent for the adjudication process. The Court mandated the respondents to complete the proceedings expeditiously within ten days from the petitioner’s appearance, ensuring procedural fairness. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with these directives.