High Court allows provisional release of seized goods under GST rules, emphasizes procedural compliance

The Allahabad High Court, in a case concerning the release of seized goods under Rule 140 of the Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017, directed that the petitioner could obtain provisional release of the goods upon complying with the requirements of Rule 140. The Court ordered the proper officer to make a decision within a specified timeframe upon the petitioner's application and compliance with the rule, emphasizing the significance of procedural adherence for the provisional release of seized goods under the GST regime.

---

---

Issues: Provision for release of seized goods under Rule 140 of Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Allahabad High Court, delivered by Bala Krishna Narayana and Shamim Ahmed JJ., revolves around the interpretation and application of Rule 140 of the Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017 concerning the release of seized goods. The petitioner, represented by Naveen Chandra Gupta, sought the release of seized goods on a provisional basis by complying with the provisions of Rule 140. The learned Standing Counsel, representing respondent nos. 1, 2, and 3, along with Special Counsel Sri C. B. Tripathi for respondent nos. 2 and 3, accepted the notice and did not object to the release of goods if the petitioner fulfilled the requirements of Rule 140.

The petitioner contended that Rule 140 empowers the proper officer, respondent no. 3 in this case, to release seized goods provisionally upon execution of a bond for the goods' value in Form GST INS-04 and providing a security equivalent to the applicable tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner expressed readiness to comply with Rule 140 and requested the release of the seized goods and the vehicle. Sri C. B. Tripathi, representing the respondents, stated that if the petitioner adhered to the mandatory requirements of Rule 140, he had no objection to the release of the goods.

Upon reviewing Rule 140 and its explanation, the Court directed that if the petitioner submitted an application to respondent no. 3 within three weeks, indicating readiness to comply with Rule 140, respondent no. 3 must make appropriate decisions within an additional week. If the petitioner fulfilled the requirements of Rule 140 and its explanation, the respondent was ordered to release the vehicle along with the goods. This judgment underscores the importance of procedural compliance with Rule 140 for the provisional release of seized goods under the GST regime, ensuring a fair and transparent process for all parties involved.

---