Case Details: Sreekrishna Traders vs. State of Karnataka (2026) 42 Centax 294 (Kar.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Sachin Shankar Magadum & Rajesh Rai K., JJ.
- S/Shri D.R. Ravishankar, Sr. Counsel & Saravana S, Adv., for the Appellant.
- Shri Aditya Vikram Bhat, AGA, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The proper officer intercepted and seized goods and conveyance and thereafter issued confiscation orders in Form GST MOV-11 under Section 130 of the CGST Act and Karnataka GST Act along with corresponding DRC-07 summaries. The appellants challenged the confiscation orders and DRC-07 summaries by filing writ petitions and sought interim release of the seized goods and conveyance pending adjudication of the writ petitions. The Single Judge granted provisional release subject to furnishing 25% of the demand reflected in DRC-07 and a bank guarantee for the remaining 75%, while also granting liberty to seek variation of the conditions. Thereafter, the appellants filed interlocutory applications seeking modification of the interim conditions, but the applications were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail appellate remedy. The appellants subsequently filed writ appeals contending that the release mechanism applicable under Section 129 should also govern their case and seeking parity with matters relating to detention and release under Section 129. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that once confiscation orders under Section 130 were passed by the proper officer, title in the seized goods and conveyance vested in the Government, and the release mechanism contemplated under Section 129 ceased to apply. It was observed that after the issuance of confiscation orders, the proceedings were governed exclusively by Section 130 in relation to confiscation, valuation, tax, penalty, interest, and fine. The Court further held that the appellants could not seek modification of the interim conditions by relying upon the detention and release provisions contained in Section 129, as the proceedings had already culminated in confiscation under Section 130. It was also held that the interim conditions imposed by the Single Judge for provisional release were in accordance with law and did not warrant interference. Accordingly, the writ appeals were dismissed.
List of Cases Cited
- Commercial Tax Officer, Enforcement v. Aaiz Steel — (2026) 41 Centax 276 (Kar.) — Followed [Paras 11, 12]
- Panchhi Traders v. State of Gujarat — (2025) 37 Centax 260 (Guj.) = 2026 (104) G.S.T.L. 289 (Guj.) — Referred [Para 7]
- Vishnu Traders v. State of Haryana 1995 SUPP (1) SCC 461 — Referred [Para 7]
