Court grants petitioner liberty to present bank guarantee for release of consignment. Prompt adjudication required under GST Act.

The court allowed the writ petition, granting the petitioner the liberty to present a bank guarantee to the 1st respondent within three days for the release of the consignment and vehicle covered by the notices. The 1st respondent was directed to promptly consider the release, with the adjudication process under the GST Act to be completed within one month from the bank guarantee submission. The judgment highlighted the necessity of following the prescribed procedure and engaging with the relevant authority for dispute resolution under the GST Act.

---

---

Issues:
1. Impugning Exts.P3 to P3(c) notices issued under Section 129 of the GST Act.
2. Refusal to release consignment and vehicle by the 1st respondent.
3. Petitioner willing to offer a bank guarantee for the amounts covered by the notices.
4. Interpretation of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.17379/2020 regarding invoking the remedy of release of consignment with a bank guarantee.
5. Direction to approach the 1st respondent for release of consignment based on a bank guarantee.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the legality of Exts.P3 to P3(c) notices issued under Section 129 of the GST Act, claiming them to be illegal, unlawful, and unjustified. The petitioner sought the release of the consignment and vehicle held by the 1st respondent. The petitioner expressed readiness to provide a bank guarantee for the amounts specified in the notices to secure the release of the goods. The petitioner approached the court through a writ petition to address the refusal of the 1st respondent to release the consignment.

2. The Government Pleader, Smt. Thushara James, argued that as per the judgment in W.P.(C)No.17379/2020, the petitioner should directly approach the 1st respondent with a bank guarantee to seek the release of the consignment. The Government Pleader emphasized the need for the petitioner to follow the established procedure and engage with the 1st respondent for the adjudication process related to the impugned notices. It was suggested that the petitioner should not have approached the court but should have directly dealt with the 1st respondent.

3. The judge, after considering the submissions and evaluating the precedent set by the judgment in W.P.(C)No.17379/2020, concluded that the petitioner indeed had the option to approach the 1st respondent with a bank guarantee for the amounts specified in the notices. The judge acknowledged that the petitioner should be granted the opportunity to avail themselves of this remedy. Consequently, the judge allowed the writ petition to the extent that the petitioner was given the liberty to present a bank guarantee to the 1st respondent within three days. Upon submission of the bank guarantee, the 1st respondent was directed to promptly consider the release of the consignment and vehicle covered by the notices. The adjudication process under the GST Act was to be completed within one month from the date of furnishing the bank guarantee.

4. In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the directive for the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent with a bank guarantee within the specified timeline for the release of the consignment and vehicle. The judgment emphasized the importance of following the prescribed procedure and engaging with the relevant authority for the resolution of disputes related to the GST Act.

---