TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 726
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the same could not have been seized. The entire seizure is illegal. Learned counsel submits that he is ready to submit surety bond instead of asking for a Bank guarantee. Issue notice of the writ petition as well as stay application, returnable within eight weeks. In the meanwhile, the goods lying with the respondent/s shall be released subject to submitting a surety bond of the equivalent amount of the value of the goods by the petitioner. The petitioner shall not be insisted for submitting the Bank guarantee." It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the directions of the Court that the petitioner shall not be insisted for submitting the Bank guarantee is contrary to the provisions of Section 67(6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 ('the Act') read with Rule 140 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Rules, 2017 ('the Rules'). It is submitted that provisions of Section 67 (6) envisage release of goods on provisional basis, upon execution of a bond and furnishing of a security, in such manner and of such quantum, as may be prescribed, and as per Rule 140 of the Rules, the seized goods may be released on a pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocuments or books or things are 'secreted', which is not the case and on that count also as the seizure is illegal and CGST authorities have no jurisdiction, therefore, passing of the interim order is justified and does not call for vacation/modification. It was also emphasized that the present action of the respondents is also contrary to Section 6 of the Act as only the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) has the jurisdiction in the matter and as such, the action of the respondents in this regard being without jurisdiction, the interim order granted by the Court does not call for any interference. Further submissions were made that the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents have no relevance to the case in hand as the said judgments/order pertain to transporters and not registered persons. Learned counsel for the respondents reiterated that the action taken by the respondents is in consonance with the statutory provisions, the seizure is valid and CGST authorities have the jurisdiction in terms of Section 6(2)(b) of the Act and as such, the interim order dated 25/5/2021 deserves to be vacated/modified. I have considered the submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed person action only under Section 35(6) read with Section 73 or 74 of the Act can be taken and that Section 67 of the Act cannot be invoked, if the circumstances as indicated therein exist. The emphasis laid by learned counsel for the petitioner that as the goods liable to be confiscated or documents or books or things were not secreted, the provisions cannot be invoked, is premature at this stage. The word 'secreted' is not defined under the Act, however, the same can be understood to mean anything which is concealed and in those circumstances even if the documents are not kept at the designated places where the same ought to be kept in terms of the Act and the Rules, and in case circumstances exist where the absence of the documents is with an intention to conceal them from the officers, the same can be termed as secreted, therefore, as observed hereinbefore, the plea raised in this regard, based on the circumstances which have come on record, is essentially premature. Consequently, at this stage, prima facie it cannot be said that the seizure is illegal for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that provisions of Section 67 (6) of the Act would have no appli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the statutory compliances. That be done within four weeks without any exception. 14. We reiterate that any order passed by the High Court which is contrary to the stated provisions need not be given effect to in respect of all the cases referred in the affidavit by the State Government before this Court and fresh cases which may have been filed or likely to be filed before the High Court in connection with the subject matter of these appeals, by all concerned and are deemed to have been set aside/modified in terms of this order. In view of this order, all the Writ Petitions pending before the High Court, list whereof has been furnished in the affidavit are deemed to have been disposed of accordingly. We have passed this common order to cover all cases of seizure during the relevant period, to obviate inconsistency in application of Law and also to do away with multiple appeals required to be filed by the State/ assessee to assail the unstatable orders/directions passed by the High Court in subject writ petition(s) referred to in the affidavit filed by the State before this Court." A perusal of the above observations indicate that qua the nature of interim order passed b....