Court Orders Release of Goods with Sureties, Questions CGST Act Interpretation

The court directed the release of goods and vehicle upon furnishing two solvent sureties, noting inefficacy of statutory remedies under Section 129. Emphasizing uncertainties in interpreting CGST Act provisions, the court highlighted the need for thorough examination before a final decision. Further hearing scheduled for 19.04.2021.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the respondent to detain goods and vehicle.
2. Legality of the detention and subsequent inquiry.
3. Applicability of Sections 67, 68, and 129 of the CGST Act, 2017.
4. Requirement to furnish bank guarantee or cash security for release of goods.
5. Interpretation of the provisions and circulars under the CGST Act, 2017.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Respondent to Detain Goods and Vehicle:
The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of respondent No.2 to detain the goods and vehicle. It was argued that the consignment, which was being transported, had all requisite documents, including Invoice No.194, E-Way Bill No.741179867941, and others. Despite this, respondent No.2 intercepted the goods and did not allow the petitioner to move, directing physical verification and issuing notice in MOV-2.

2. Legality of the Detention and Subsequent Inquiry:
The petitioners contended that the inquiry into the alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit was beyond the scope of respondent No.2's powers under Section 68 of the CGST Act, 2017. They argued that such inquiries should be conducted by the regular Assessing Officer, not by the Anti Evasion Officer or check-post incharge. The court noted that the respondent No.2's actions were not justified as all prescribed documents were available and the goods were in order.

3. Applicability of Sections 67, 68, and 129 of the CGST Act, 2017:
The court emphasized the need to interpret Sections 67, 68, and 129 of the CGST Act, 2017. It was observed that the circular dated 13.04.2018 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, which provides guidelines for inspection and release of goods in transit, was not adhered to by respondent No.2. The court held that once goods in transit conform to the documents, the scope of inquiry under Section 68 ends, and respondent No.2 cannot initiate an inquiry into the genuineness of the purchase and corresponding input tax credit.

4. Requirement to Furnish Bank Guarantee or Cash Security for Release of Goods:
The petitioners argued that the provisions of Section 129 of the Act, requiring payment of tax and penalty or furnishing a bank guarantee, would adversely affect their business. The court noted that the statutory remedies would be inefficacious and illusory, given the high proposed penalty. The court directed respondent No.2 to release the goods and vehicle upon furnishing two solvent sureties to the tune of Rs. 15 lakhs executed by dealers registered in Rajasthan, without insisting on a bank guarantee or cash security.

5. Interpretation of the Provisions and Circulars under the CGST Act, 2017:
The court highlighted that the provisions of Sections 67, 68, and 129 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the related circulars, are subject to varied interpretations by assessees and authorities. The court observed that the path under the new GST regime is unfamiliar and unmarked, leading to uncertainties in the powers of authorities and responsibilities of dealers. The court found that the notice dated 18.03.2021 issued by respondent No.2 proposed an unjustifiably high penalty, indicating a misinterpretation of the provisions.

Conclusion:
The court directed the release of the goods and vehicle upon furnishing two solvent sureties, emphasizing that the statutory remedies under Section 129 were inefficacious. The court acknowledged the need for a thorough examination of facts and law for a final decision and noted the uncertainties in the interpretation of the CGST Act provisions. The case was listed for further hearing on 19.04.2021.

---