2018 (3) TMI 969 - HC - GST

Detention of goods (M.S scrap) with vehicle - non-production of proper documents - insistence of the respondent that the petitioner must pay the security deposit demanded in the detention notice as a condition for release of the goods and vehicle - Held that - The learned counsel for the petitioner faced with a situation where detention is inevitable till such time as the adjudication is completed undertakes to furnish a bank guarantee for the amount demanded in Ext.P3 notice - the respondent directed to release the goods and the vehicle covered by the detention notice, to the petitioner, on the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for the amount demanded in Ext.P3 notice, before the respondent - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Detention of consignment of M.S scrap by respondents due to lack of proper documents under SGST Act and Rules; petitioner's grievance regarding security deposit demanded for release.

In the judgment delivered by Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar of the Kerala High Court, the primary issue revolved around the detention of a consignment of M.S scrap by the respondents due to the absence of proper documents as required under the SGST Act and Rules. The petitioner, aggrieved by the insistence of the respondents on paying a security deposit for the release of the goods and vehicle, filed a writ petition seeking redress.

Upon considering the facts and submissions from both parties, the judge issued the following directions. Firstly, after examining the detention notice (Ext.P3), it was noted that the respondent's objection pertained to the lack of proper documents accompanying the consignment. The petitioner's counsel acknowledged the necessity of furnishing a bank guarantee for the amount demanded in the notice to facilitate the release of the goods and vehicle. In light of this, the judge directed the respondent to release the detained items to the petitioner once the bank guarantee is provided.

Secondly, the judge ordered that the respondent should forward the case files to the adjudicating authority promptly. The adjudicating authority was instructed to hear the petitioner and issue a decision within two weeks from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment. This step aimed to ensure a swift resolution of the matter.

Lastly, the petitioner was required to present a copy of the judgment and the writ petition to the respondent for record-keeping purposes. These comprehensive directions aimed to address the immediate concerns raised by the petitioner regarding the detention of the consignment and to expedite the adjudication process under the SGST Act and Rules.