2019 (6) TMI 310 - HC - GST

Detention of goods - bonafides in the plea of the petitioner - HELD THAT - This Court, if considers either the objections raised by the petitioner against the detention of goods or accepts the explanation and considers releasing the goods, the same amounts to deviating from the scheme under the Act. According to her the petitioner at best could be given liberty to file additional representation/explanation and the authorities could also be directed to pass orders within three days from the date of receipt of the additional representation/explanation from the petitioner. Petitioner, is given liberty to file additional representation/explanation by enclosing a copy of this order within twenty four hours from today and the 1st respondent shall consider the objections raised in Ext. P3 as well as the additional representation/ explanation pass an order on or before Saturday.

Summary

Issues involved: Petition to quash detention of goods and related documents; Maintainability of the writ petition.

Analysis:

1. Petition to quash detention of goods and related documents: The petitioner sought to quash the documents issued by the 1st respondent and demanded the release of the detained goods. The petitioner argued that the detention of goods was illegal and lacked jurisdiction. Reference was made to Ext. P3 to demonstrate that the goods were transported with valid documents, and any omissions were due to the innocence of the driver. The petitioner contended that there was no justification for the continued detention of the goods. The court acknowledged the petitioner's objections and allowed the petitioner to submit additional representation/explanation within twenty-four hours. The 1st respondent was directed to consider the objections raised and the additional representation/explanation and pass an order accordingly.

2. Maintainability of the writ petition: The learned Government Pleader objected to the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that most of the petitioner's submissions were circumstances that needed verification. It was contended that if the petitioner's bona fides were proven, it was the 1st respondent's responsibility to pass appropriate orders. The Government Pleader suggested that the court deviating from the scheme under the Act if it considered releasing the goods based on the objections raised. The court, however, found that the petitioner should be allowed to raise objections and submit additional representation/explanation. The court directed the 1st respondent to consider the objections and the additional representation/explanation and make a decision within the specified time frame.

In conclusion, the court granted the petitioner the opportunity to provide additional representation/explanation and directed the 1st respondent to consider the objections raised and release the goods if satisfied with the explanation or assurance of the petitioner to provide a bank guarantee for the tax amount and penalty. The court emphasized the need for timely action and ordered the registry to provide a copy of the judgment promptly.