2019 (2) TMI 329 - HC - GST

Detention of goods and vehicle - Failure to remit tax and penalty u/s 129 of KGST Act, 2017 - Confiscation u/s 130 of the Act justified or not? - Held that - We are afraid that the time for raising such a contention has not arisen, since as of now the Department has not proceeded under Section 130. On furnishing the Bank Guarantee for tax and penalty as provided under Rule 141 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, and simple bond without sureties for the value of the goods, the goods and the vehicle shall be released expeditiously Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Release of goods and vehicle by way of Bank Guarantee.
2. Interpretation of Sections 129 and 130 of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought release of goods and vehicle through a Bank Guarantee instead of remitting money, citing a previous judgment of the Division Bench. The Single Judge had allowed temporary registration upon remittance, but the appellant opted for a Bank Guarantee. The court considered the appellant's stance and the provisions of Rule 141 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The court decided to grant release upon furnishing the Bank Guarantee and a simple bond without sureties for the value of the goods, emphasizing expeditious action.

2. The appellant's counsel raised a contention under Section 130 of the Act regarding the failure to remit tax and penalty as per Section 129, potentially leading to confiscation of goods. However, the court noted that the Department had not initiated proceedings under Section 130 yet. The counsel was given the option to challenge Section 130 proceedings separately or furnish the Bank Guarantee for release. The court opined that the current situation did not warrant raising the Section 130 issue, as failure to remit tax and penalty under Section 129 would not arise if a Bank Guarantee was provided. Therefore, the court decided to dispose of the Writ Appeal, clarifying the conditions for the release of goods and the vehicle.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the appellant's request for release through a Bank Guarantee, emphasizing compliance with Rule 141 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The court also discussed the interpretation of Sections 129 and 130 of the Act in the context of the case, providing clarity on the procedural aspects and conditions for release.