2018 (11) TMI 517 - HC - GST

Court orders release of goods and vehicle upon conditions, scrutinizes authorities' actions

The court directed the respondent authorities to release the petitioner's goods and vehicle upon furnishing a bank guarantee for tax and penalty due, ... Detention of goods with vehicle - it is alleged that the consignment note does not contain the details of the vehicle used for the transport - Held that:- An identical issue decided in the case of RENJI LAL DAMODARAN, DAMU & SONS SALES CORPORATION VERSUS STATE TAX OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA AND ASST. STATE TAX OFFICER, KARUNAGAPALLY[2018 (8) TMI 1145 - KERALA HIGH COURT], where it was held that It is directed to release the goods on the appellant 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. The respondent authorities 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 disposed off. Issues:1. Challenge to Rule 140 of the CGST/SGST Rules regarding the release of detained goods under Section 129(1) of the Act.2. Validity of Ext.P9 order and Ext.P10 notice.3. Direction to refrain from proceeding under Section 129 of the Act.4. Release of goods without collecting security under S.129(1)(c).Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged Rule 140 of the CGST/SGST Rules, arguing that it violated Article 301 of the Constitution by mandating the collection of security for the release of detained goods. The court referred to a previous judgment in Renji Lal Damodaran Vs. State Tax Officer, where a similar issue was addressed. Following the ratio of that judgment, the court directed the respondent authorities to release the petitioner's goods and vehicle upon the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for tax and penalty due, along with a bond for the value of goods as prescribed under Rule 140(1) of the CGST Rules.2. The validity of Ext.P9 order and Ext.P10 notice was questioned by the petitioner. The court did not provide a detailed analysis of these documents but directed to scrutinize the records leading to their issuance and subsequently strike down and quash them if necessary. This aspect was not elaborated upon further in the judgment.3. The petitioner sought a direction to refrain from further proceedings under Section 129 of the Act based on Ext.P9 and P10. The court did not explicitly address this issue in detail but disposed of the writ petition by directing the release of goods and vehicle upon compliance with the specified conditions, thereby implying a halt to the proceedings under Section 129.4. Lastly, the petitioner requested the release of goods without the collection of security under S.129(1)(c). The court's direction to furnish a bank guarantee and a bond for the value of goods aligns with this request, as it allows for the release of goods without immediate financial payment but instead through the provision of specified securities. This aspect was effectively addressed through the court's directive in disposing of the writ petition.