Court Orders Release of Detained Goods & Seized Vehicles in GST Dispute

The court ordered the release of detained goods and seized vehicles in two connected cases. In the first case, the petitioner challenged the detention of goods due to a mismatched vehicle number on the e-way bill, with the court ordering release upon furnishing a bank guarantee. In the second case, demands for security and tax penalty were found to have discrepancies, leading to the release of goods upon providing a bank guarantee. The court emphasized compliance with the GST Act and resolved the issues by requiring bank guarantees, resulting in the release of the goods and seized vehicle.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Detention of goods based on mismatched vehicle number in e-way bill
2. Demand for security and tax penalty
3. Release of detained goods and seized vehicle

Issue 1: Detention of goods based on mismatched vehicle number in e-way bill
In W. P. (C.) No. 33511/2019, the petitioner challenged the detention of goods due to a discrepancy in the vehicle number on the e-way bill. The petitioner argued that the detention was arbitrary and illegal. The court, after hearing both parties, ordered the release of the detained goods upon the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee equal to the higher of the two demanded amounts mentioned in the notice.

Issue 2: Demand for security and tax penalty
The petitioner in W. P. (C.) No. 33511/2019 faced demands for security and tax penalty. The court noted discrepancies in the amounts demanded under different sections of the GST Act and directed the release of goods upon the petitioner providing a bank guarantee for the higher of the two amounts demanded. The court found the petitioner's proposal fair and reasonable, leading to the order for the release of the goods.

Issue 3: Release of detained goods and seized vehicle
In W. P. (C.) No. 935/2019, the petitioner sought the release of a goods carriage vehicle seized under section 129 of the Act. The court, considering the judgment in the connected case, ordered the release of the seized vehicle and detained goods upon the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for the higher of the two demanded amounts. The petitioner's counsel confirmed the petitioner's status as the registered owner of the vehicle, leading to the closure of the petition.

In conclusion, the court's judgment addressed the grievances of the petitioners regarding the detention of goods and the seizure of the vehicle. By emphasizing the need for a bank guarantee and ensuring compliance with the GST Act's provisions, the court provided a balanced resolution to the interconnected cases, ultimately leading to the release of the detained goods and the seized vehicle.

---