2017 (3) TMI 441 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Release of bank guarantee - petitioner claim that the bank guarantee should be discharged and handed over to the petitioner, in view of the fact that delay in disposal of the revision petition is resulting in financial detriment to the petitioner - Held that - the respondent no.1 is directed to dispose of the revision petition, as expeditiously as possible, though, not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording personal hearing to the petitioner and/ or its authorised representative - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-discharge of bank guarantee for compounding fee
2. Pending adjudication of revision petition

Analysis:
1. The petitioner's grievance revolves around two main issues. Firstly, the bank guarantee provided to secure the potential compounding fee has not been released despite a significant lapse of almost two years. Secondly, a revision petition submitted to the respondent for adjudication since 27.02.2015 remains pending.

2. The petitioner, registered as a dealer in Punjab, imported Radiators from China through Chennai Port for an inter-state sale to Agra, Uttar Pradesh. Upon interception at a check post, the petitioner filed a writ petition (W.P.No.2670 of 2015) seeking relief, which was disposed of on 04.02.2015. The order directed the release of goods upon payment of a tax component and the furnishing of a bank guarantee for the remaining amount.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner paid a one-time tax of &8377;29,324 and provided a bank guarantee of &8377;11,54,000 as security for any compounding fee claim. The goods were released to the petitioner upon compliance with these requirements.

4. The delay in disposing of the revision petition has led to financial implications for the petitioner, as highlighted by their counsel, Mr. Baktha Siromoni, who urged for the discharge of the bank guarantee. On the other hand, Mr. Venkatesh, representing the respondents, assured expedited resolution of the revision petition if directed by the court.

5. After hearing both parties and reviewing the case records, the court determined that the most appropriate course of action is to instruct respondent no.1 to promptly resolve the pending revision petition. The court ordered the respondent to finalize the revision petition within six weeks from the receipt of the order, providing a chance for the petitioner or their authorized representative to present their case.

6. If the petitioner succeeds in the revision petition, the bank guarantee will be canceled and returned to them or their representative. The writ petition was consequently disposed of with no cost implications, adhering to the aforementioned directives to ensure a timely resolution of the matter.