GST transit detention requires provisional release only on statutory bond and security; equitable discretion cannot relax the prescribed conditions.

Where GST transit detention occurs, provisional release must follow the statutory mechanism requiring a bond for the value of the goods and security for tax and penalty, and the Court cannot replace those conditions with a more lenient arrangement on equitable grounds. The prescribed bond and bank guarantee requirements were treated as mandatory, and the detained goods were directed to be released only on compliance with those conditions. The trader was left to pursue the appellate remedy against the demand order.

---

---

Issues: (i) What relief is available to a trader whose goods are detained under the GST transit provisions; (ii) whether judicial discretion can dilute the statutory requirements for release of detained goods.

Issue (i): What relief is available to a trader whose goods are detained under the GST transit provisions.

Analysis: The detention and release mechanism under the GST law was examined along with the provisional release provision applicable to seized goods. The statutory scheme contemplates detention where goods are transported in contravention of the Act or the Rules, but also provides for release on payment of tax and penalty or on furnishing security, and for provisional release on executing a bond and furnishing security in the prescribed manner. The Court held that the proper course, pending adjudication, is compliance with the prescribed bond and security requirements.

Conclusion: The detained goods were directed to be provisionally released on the petitioner furnishing a bond for the value of the goods and a bank guarantee for the tax and penalty.

Issue (ii): Whether judicial discretion can dilute the statutory requirements for release of detained goods.

Analysis: The Court held that judicial discretion cannot override a clear statutory command. Where the law prescribes the mode and quantum of security for provisional release, the Court cannot substitute a more lenient arrangement merely on equitable considerations. The statutory rigour must be applied as enacted, and discretion can operate only within the boundaries of the legal framework.

Conclusion: The statutory requirements could not be diluted, and the petitioner was required to comply with the prescribed bond and security conditions.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of by directing provisional release of the goods on compliance with the statutory conditions, while leaving the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy against the demand order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the GST law provides a specific mechanism for provisional release of detained goods, the Court cannot dilute that mechanism by equity or discretion, and release must follow the prescribed bond and security conditions.

---