TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Upholds Seized Goods Release Order Under CGST Act with Bank Guarantee</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST AND EXICISE Versus M/s PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWLLERY</h3> The Court rejected the application for review of a judgment directing the provisional release of seized goods under the CGST Act, 2017. The Court ... Review application - Provisional release of goods - review is sought for on the ground that while the total tax demand was of ₹ 13,03,57,862/-, only ₹ 46,75,791/- has been secured by this Court and no suitable directions have been issued to secure the remaining tax demand - HELD THAT:- This Court has duly recorded the submission of the learned senior standing counsel that in terms of the show cause notice, the total tax demand comes to around of ₹ 13 crores and hence the relief claimed in the petition may not be granted and that, if at all, the Court is inclined to grant any relief as prayed for, the respondent (original petitioner) may be directed to furnish the bank guarantee of at least ₹ 1 crore. No case is made out for review of the aforesaid judgment and order - Application dismissed. Issues: Review of judgment directing provisional release of seized goods under CGST Act, 2017.The judgment in question pertains to an application seeking a review of a previous order passed by the Gujarat High Court directing the provisional release of seized goods under sub-section (6) of section 67 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The applicants sought a review on the grounds that the total tax demand was significantly higher than what had been secured by the Court, and no suitable directions were given to secure the remaining tax demand. The applicants argued that the relief claimed in the petition may not be granted as per the judgment. The Court considered the submissions made by both parties, where the learned senior standing counsel highlighted the total tax demand of around &8377; 13 crores, suggesting that a bank guarantee of at least &8377; 1 crore should be furnished by the respondent. However, the Court, after deliberation, recorded that the total amount payable on the seized goods was &8377; 46,75,791, and with an additional 50% penalty, it would amount to approximately &8377; 70 lakhs. The petitioner had already made certain deposits, and the Court found that furnishing a bank guarantee of &8377; 50 lakhs, along with a bond for the value of the goods in the prescribed form, would serve the interest of justice. Consequently, the judgment and order dated 29.1.2019 were passed in consideration of these factors, and the Court concluded that no grounds were established for the review of the judgment. As a result, the application for review was summarily rejected by the Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
