2020 (6) TMI 383 - HC - GST

Court upholds detention of goods under CGST Act, directs deposit and bank guarantee

Om Sai Traders Versus The State Tax Officer (1)

The court declined to quash the notice challenging the detention of goods under Section 130 of the CGST Act and GGST Act. The applicant was directed to ... Release of seized goods alongwith vehicle - seizure only for the discrepancy in the e-way bill that the vehicle number was not correlated - HELD THAT:- We are of the opinion that we should not interfere with the impugned show cause notice issued by the authority under Section 130 of the Act. We are of the view that the authority should be permitted to adjudicate the show cause notice in accordance with law. However, we deem fit to take into consideration the fact that the goods involved in the present litigation is a consignment of Tobacco and with the onset of monsoon the goods are likely to get damaged. The writ applicant to deposit an amount of ₹ 10,00,000/- with the concerned authority towards tax and penalty. To secure the interest of the State, we also direct the writ applicant to furnish Bank Guarantee of ₹ 7,00,000/- that is the value of the goods. On deposit of the amount of ₹ 10,00,000/- and furnishing of a Bank Guarantee to the tune of ₹ 7,00,000/- of a nationalized bank, the authority concerned shall release the goods and the vehicle at the earliest. Application disposed off. Issues:Challenge to detention of goods under Section 129(2) of the CGST Act and a notice issued under Form MOV-10 under Section 130 of the CGST Act and GGST Act.Analysis:The writ applicant, engaged in trading tobacco, challenged the detention of goods and a notice issued under Section 130 of the CGST Act and GGST Act. The applicant purchased tobacco units, which were to be delivered by road but were seized due to a discrepancy in the e-way bill. The authorities initiated proceedings under Section 129, imposing a penalty and tax of Rs. 9,94,000. Simultaneously, a notice under Section 130 was issued to show cause for possible confiscation, alleging tax evasion. The applicant sought relief, arguing against confiscation, citing a previous court decision. The government pleader opposed, claiming tax evasion intent. The court decided not to quash the notice, allowing the authority to adjudicate it but directed the applicant to deposit Rs. 10,00,000 towards tax and penalty and provide a bank guarantee of Rs. 7,00,000 for the goods' value to secure their release due to the risk of damage during monsoon. The goods and vehicle would be released upon compliance, while the adjudication would proceed. The writ application was disposed of accordingly.