Interim security limited to prima facie tax; bank guarantee stays for tax only and beneficiary changed to respondent no.3.

Interim relief securing alleged short-paid tax for release of perishable goods is confined to the prima facie tax amount; the court refuses to extend the security to cover a contested penalty component. The interim order of 22.01.2026 therefore remains in substance securing the tax short paid, but is administratively modified to alter the bank guarantee beneficiary: the guarantee must be furnished in the name of respondent no.3 instead of respondent no.2. Incidental administrative modification does not expand the secured obligation to include penalty claims at the interim stage.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the interim order dated 22.01.2026 should be modified to require the bank guarantee to cover the penalty component in addition to the tax short paid; (ii) Whether the bank guarantee directed to be furnished should be submitted in the name of respondent no.2 or respondent no.3.

Issue (i): Whether the interim order dated 22.01.2026 should be altered to increase the bank guarantee to include the penalty component in addition to the tax short paid.

Analysis: The interim order of 22.01.2026 required a bank guarantee to secure the tax alleged to be short paid (CGST and SGST totaling Rs.4,52,076) to facilitate release of perishable goods. The communication placed on record includes a calculation that also shows a penalty component, but the purpose of the interim order was to secure the tax amount prima facie to protect the revenue while ensuring release of perishable goods. The presence of a penalty component in the departmental communication does not, on the facts presented, displace the Court's prima facie assessment that securing the tax amount is sufficient for interim relief.

Conclusion: The application to increase the bank guarantee to cover the penalty component is rejected; no modification of the interim order on this ground is made (decision against the applicant on this issue).

Issue (ii): Whether the bank guarantee directed by the interim order should be furnished in the name of respondent no.2 or in the name of respondent no.3.

Analysis: The interim order directed furnishing of a bank guarantee but did not specify the precise beneficiary at the level contested. The applicant sought that the bank guarantee be submitted to respondent no.3. Given the departmental structure and the representation before the Court, the interim order is open to modification limited to the beneficiary named for receipt of the guarantee without altering the secured amount fixed by the original order.

Conclusion: The interim order is modified to direct that the bank guarantee required by the order dated 22.01.2026 be furnished in the name of respondent no.3 instead of respondent no.2 (decision in favour of the applicant on this limited point).

Final Conclusion: The interim order of 22.01.2026 is retained in substance to secure the tax short paid (Rs.4,52,076) and is modified only to change the beneficiary named for the bank guarantee to respondent no.3; the request to increase the guarantee to include penalty is declined.

Ratio Decidendi: Where interim relief is granted to secure a claimed tax demand to enable release of perishable goods, the court may limit security to the prima facie tax amount and may modify incidental administrative details of the security (such as the named beneficiary) without extending the security to cover contested penalty claims at the interim stage.

---