2019 (7) TMI 1703 - HC - GST

Release of goods alongwith the vehicle - contention of Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that although an authority having competent jurisdiction passed order favouring the petitioner on 22-6-2019 the goods are not being released - HELD THAT - Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby call upon Assistant Commissioner (Mobile Squad) Rai Bareli to furnish an explanation as to under what jurisdiction or authority of law the consignment of goods of the petitioner and the truck are not being released. In case by the next date of listing the consignment is not released despite the fact that there is no stay of operation of order dated 22-6-2019 the said authority would show cause why costs be not imposed. List on 19-7-2019 high up on the list.

Summary

Issues:
Petition seeking mandamus for release of goods and vehicle without security; Challenge of seizure of consignment of goods by respondents; Preliminary objection raised regarding appealable penalty order; Application of Rule 140 of Rules, 2017 for release of goods/vehicle; Non-release of goods despite appellate authority's order; Lack of jurisdiction to retain goods/consignment and truck.

Analysis:
The petition sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 3 to release goods and vehicle without demanding security. The respondents had seized a consignment of goods being transported from Kanpur to Bihar, which was challenged in a previous writ petition. The petitioner, a registered GST dealer, contended that despite proper documentation, the goods were detained, and penalty proceedings were initiated. The Standing Counsel argued that the penalty order was appealable under Section 107 of the Rules, providing an efficacious remedy. The Court emphasized the availability of an appeal for the petitioner and directed them to file an appeal within a week. The authority was instructed to decide the appeal within three weeks. Additionally, Rule 140 of Rules, 2017 was cited for the release of goods on furnishing a bank guarantee. The petitioner was directed to apply for release, and the competent authority was expected to release the goods within a week upon satisfaction with the bank guarantee.

In response to the appellate authority's order directing the release of goods and truck, the petitioner claimed non-release by the respondents despite the favorable decision. The Court questioned the respondent's counsel regarding any stay on the order, to which it was confirmed that there was no stay. Consequently, the Court called upon the Assistant Commissioner to explain why the goods were not released despite the absence of a stay order. If the consignment was not released by the next listing date, the authority was to show cause why costs should not be imposed. The matter was listed for further hearing on a specified date, and the order was directed to be conveyed to the concerned respondents through the Senior Registrar of the Court and the respondent's counsel.