Court stresses statutory compliance over conflicting orders, directs Revenue Authorities to expedite case adjudication within three months

The High Court emphasized adherence to statutory provisions over conflicting High Court orders, highlighting the need for strict compliance with statutory requirements. The Court found the petitioner had already furnished a bank guarantee as required by the UPGST Act before the disputed order, deeming the subsequent directive for another guarantee unnecessary. Consequently, the Court directed Revenue Authorities to promptly adjudicate the case within three months, maintaining the existing bank guarantee during the process.

---

---

Issues:
1. Compliance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Kay Pan Fragrance Pvt. Ltd.
2. Interpretation and application of Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
3. Validity of the order dated 4th December, 2019 directing the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Compliance with Supreme Court Judgment
The High Court noted that the order dated 4th December, 2019 was issued in compliance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Kay Pan Fragrance Pvt. Ltd. The Supreme Court's judgment emphasized adherence to statutory provisions over High Court orders that deviate from such provisions. The High Court highlighted the need for authorities to process claims strictly as per statutory requirements, disregarding any contrary High Court orders.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 129 of UPGST Act, 2017
Section 129 of the UPGST Act, 2017 outlines a summary procedure for the detention, seizure, and release of goods and conveyances in transit. It mandates the issuance of a notice specifying tax and penalty, with provisions for payment or security equivalent to the amount payable. The scheme aims to ensure expeditious release of seized goods while protecting revenue interests. Once the required amount is paid or security furnished, proceedings initiated under Section 129(3) are deemed concluded, allowing for the swift release of goods.

Issue 3: Validity of the Order for Bank Guarantee
The High Court found that the petitioner had already furnished a bank guarantee in compliance with the requirements of Section 129(1)(a) and (c) of the UPGST Act, 2017 before the order dated 4th December, 2019. As the goods were released based on this security deposit, the subsequent order directing the petitioner to furnish another bank guarantee was deemed infructuous. The High Court held that the proceedings under Section 129 were to be considered concluded, and directed the Revenue Authorities to adjudicate the case on merits expeditiously.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the Revenue Authorities to adjudicate the case promptly within three months and specifying that the existing bank guarantee shall remain with the authorities pending the outcome of the adjudication.

---