Court orders release of detained consignment under CGST/SGST Act due to expired E-Way Bill with bank guarantee for penalty

The court directed the release of a consignment detained under Section 129(3) of the CGST/SGST Act due to an expired E-Way Bill validity upon the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for the penalty amount of Rs. 3,56,100. The tax had been paid, and the petitioner disputed the penalty amount demanded in the detention notice. The 2nd respondent was ordered to complete adjudication within one month after considering the petitioner's reply.

---

---

Issues:
Detention under Section 129(3) of the CGST/SGST Act due to expired E-Way Bill validity, demand for tax and penalty, release of consignment upon furnishing bank guarantee.

Detention under Section 129(3) of the CGST/SGST Act:
The petitioner challenged Ext.P4 notice of detention due to the consignment arriving after the E-Way Bill's validity period. The detention was for non-payment of penalty amounting to Rs. 3,56,100, as the tax had been paid. The Court directed the release of the consignment and vehicle upon the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for the penalty amount. The 2nd respondent was instructed to complete the adjudication within one month after considering the petitioner's reply to the detention notice.

Demand for Tax and Penalty:
The detention notice demanded tax and penalty quantified at twice the tax found payable on the consignment. The petitioner disputed the penalty amount, leading to the Court's decision to release the consignment upon furnishing a bank guarantee for the penalty amount. The tax had already been paid by the petitioner.

Release of Consignment upon Furnishing Bank Guarantee:
The Court ordered the release of the consignment and vehicle covered by the detention notice upon the petitioner providing a bank guarantee for the penalty amount of Rs. 3,56,100. The 2nd respondent was instructed to finalize the adjudication within one month after considering the petitioner's response and hearing them. The petitioner was directed to submit a copy of the writ petition and the judgment to the 2nd respondent for further action.

---