9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1144 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxDetention of goods with vehicle - demand of tax and penalty - Held that - Indeed the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act. Nevertheless the petitioner has agreed to provide the Bank guarantee as mandated under Rule 140 of the CGST Rules and to have the goods released subject to the departmental proceedings now initiated through Ext.P4 series - the respondent will release the petitioner s goods on its providing the Bank guarantee for the value of the goods as mentioned in Ext.P4 - petition allowed.
Issues:
Interception of goods and demand for tax/penalty during transportation of tiles in Gujarat; Petitioner challenging respondent's action through writ petition; Availability of alternative remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act; Agreement to provide bank guarantee for goods release; Decision on releasing goods and allowing departmental proceedings. Analysis: The petitioner, a firm, purchased tiles in Gujarat and faced interception by the respondent authority, who issued demands for tax/penalty. Challenging this, the petitioner filed a writ petition. The court heard arguments from both parties, acknowledging the petitioner's alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Despite the availability of this remedy, the petitioner agreed to provide a bank guarantee as required by Rule 140 of the CGST Rules to secure the release of the goods detained by the authorities. The Government Pleader representing the respondent stated that if the petitioner provides a bank guarantee for the estimated value of the goods mentioned in the interception notice (Ext.P4), the respondent has no objection to releasing the goods. Additionally, the Government Pleader confirmed that the department could proceed with the proceedings initiated through Ext.P4. In light of these submissions, the court decided that the respondent should release the petitioner's goods upon the provision of the bank guarantee for the value specified in Ext.P4. The judgment emphasized that after the goods are released, the authorities are permitted to continue with the proceedings in accordance with the law. This decision ensures that the petitioner's goods are released upon compliance with the bank guarantee requirement, allowing the department to proceed with the necessary actions outlined in the interception notice.
|
