Court Upholds Seized Goods Release Order Under CGST Act with Bank Guarantee

The Court rejected the application for review of a judgment directing the provisional release of seized goods under the CGST Act, 2017. The Court determined that the petitioner should furnish a bank guarantee of 50 lakhs and a bond for the value of the goods to secure the tax demand. The total amount payable on the seized goods was found to be 46,75,791, with an additional 50% penalty amounting to approximately 70 lakhs. The Court concluded that these measures would serve the interest of justice and dismissed the application for review.

---

---

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.

---