2018 (11) TMI 398 - HC - GST

Court upholds Rule 140 in GST detention case, cites precedent for consistency and denies relief.

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging Rule 140 of the CGST/SCST Rules in a detention proceeding under Section 129 of the Goods and Services ... Detention of goods with vehicles - Vires of Rule 140 of the CGST/SCST Rules - collection of security in the form of simple bond for the value of goods and bank guarantee equivalent to the amount of applicable tax, interst and penalty payable as a mandatory condtiion for the release of the goods detained under section 129(3) of the Act - Held that:- The issue is covered by the decision in the case of K. KARUNAKARAN PROPRIETOR, M/S. BHARATH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, SALEM VERSUS THE ASST. STATE TAX OFFICER SQUAD NO. 1, KERALA STATE GST DEPARTMENT, ALUVA AND THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE GST TAX TOWERS, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM [2018 (8) TMI 1141 - KERALA HIGH COURT], where it was held that The respondent authorities directed to release the petitioner's goods and vehicle on his 'furnishing Bank Guarantee for tax and penalty found due and a bond for the value of goods in the form as prescribed under Rule 140(1) of the CGST Rules - petition dismissed. Issues:Detention proceedings under Section 129 of the Goods and Services Tax Act; Challenge to Rule 140 of the CGST/SCST Rules; Violation of Article 301 of the Constitution; Writ petition seeking various reliefs; Application of a previous judgment to the current case.Analysis:The petitioner, a dealer, was subject to detention proceedings under Section 129 of the Goods and Services Tax Act. The core contention of the writ petition was the challenge against Rule 140 of the CGST/SCST Rules. The petitioner sought to declare the rule, which mandates the collection of security in the form of a simple bond and bank guarantee for the release of detained goods, as violative of Article 301 of the Constitution. The petitioner also requested the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to strike down the order and notice related to the detention proceedings. Furthermore, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to refrain from further proceedings under Section 129 and to release the goods without collecting any security under the said section.The judgment noted that the issue raised in the writ petition had already been addressed in a previous judgment dated 9th August 2018 in another case. By applying the same legal principle and ratio from the previous judgment, the court dismissed the current writ petition. The court's decision was based on the precedent set by the earlier judgment, indicating that the legal position and interpretation of the law were consistent with the previous ruling. This application of legal precedent served as the basis for the dismissal of the petitioner's claims and the denial of the reliefs sought in the writ petition.