Prompt Decision on Goods Release Application Required Under GST Act Section 67

The court directed the competent authority to promptly decide on the writ applicants' application for the provisional release of goods seized under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. The court specified that the competent authority must review and decide on the application within fifteen days and granted the applicants the right to appeal to the appellate authority if dissatisfied with the decision. The court emphasized that it did not express any opinion on the case's merits and concluded the disposal of the writ application with these directives.

---

---

Issues:
1. Seizure and detention of goods under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act.
2. Provisional release of goods pending confiscation proceedings.
3. Application under Section 67(6) for provisional release of goods.
4. Competent authority's power to pass an order for provisional release of goods.
5. Directions for the disposal of the writ application.

Analysis:
The writ applicants sought relief to quash a press note, set aside an impugned summon, and prevent actions against the petitioner under GST laws. The goods in question were seized under Section 67 of the CGST Act, and the counsel for the writ applicants aimed to secure the release of the goods pending confiscation proceedings. The counsel highlighted that a notice under Section 130 of the Act was served, and the liability towards tax, penalty, and fine was yet to be adjudicated.

The court referred to Section 67(6) of the Act, which allows for the provisional release of seized goods upon execution of a bond, furnishing security, or payment of applicable tax, interest, and penalty. The competent authority was empowered to order provisional release subject to specified terms and conditions. The court advised the counsel to file an application under Section 67(6) for the goods' provisional release, directing the competent authority to decide on the application promptly.

The court disposed of the writ application with specific directions. Firstly, if the writ applicants filed an application under Section 67(6) for provisional release, the competent authority must review and decide on it within fifteen days. Secondly, the applicants were granted the right to appeal to the appellate authority under Section 107 if dissatisfied with the decision. The court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the case's merits, concluding the disposal of the writ application.

---