9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1191 - HC - GSTRelease of detained goods with vehicle without producing bank guarantee - Held that - Indeed has seen from Section 129(6) of the GST the detention proceedings are time bound. there are no reason to doubt that the STO will drag the proceedings contrary to the statutory mandate - the writ petition is closed leaving it open for the petitioner to appear before the STO in terms of the Ext.P4 and invite an order accordingly.
Issues:
Detention of goods by State Tax Officer under Section 129 of GST Act; Writ petition seeking mandamus to expedite proceedings for release of goods without bank guarantee. Analysis: The petitioner, a consignor, had its goods detained by the State Tax Officer (STO) under Section 129 of the GST Act. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus or direction to the STO to adjudicate the proceedings promptly, allowing the release of the vehicle and goods without the need for a bank guarantee. The Government Pleader informed the Court that the STO had fixed a date for the petitioner to appear and stated that the matter would be disposed of on that date. The Court noted the time-bound nature of detention proceedings under Section 129(6) of the GST Act and expressed confidence that the STO would not delay the proceedings against the statutory mandate. Consequently, the Court closed the writ petition, leaving it open for the petitioner to appear before the STO as per the notice and obtain an appropriate order. This judgment primarily addresses the issue of detention of goods by the STO under the GST Act and the petitioner's request for expedited proceedings for the release of goods without the requirement of a bank guarantee. The Court's decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to the statutory timelines for such detention proceedings and ensures that the petitioner has the opportunity to present their case before the STO as per the notice issued. The judgment reflects a balanced approach, acknowledging the petitioner's concerns while also recognizing the authority and obligations of the STO in handling the matter in accordance with the law.
|
