2019 (7) TMI 190 - HC - GST

Detention of goods u/s 129 (1) of CGST Act, 2017 - Part B of the E-Way Bill - omission or illegality in transportation of goods - HELD THAT - To confirm to the scheme under the Act, the writ petition is disposed of by this order. The petitioner submits bank guarantee for the tax and penalty as shown in Ext.P4(d) and applies for release of goods by enclosing a copy of this order within two days from today. The 1st respondent shall release the goods detained under Ext.P4(c) and subjected to enquiry in Ext.P4(d) within twelve hours from the date and time of receipt of bank guarantee. The bank guarantee shall be kept valid for one month from today. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging legality of detention order under CGST Act, maintainability of writ petition, compliance with requirements of law, bank guarantee for tax and penalty amount, release of detained goods, completion of enquiry process within specified timeframe.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged Ext.P4 series notices issued by the 1st respondent as illegal and without jurisdiction, including an order of detention and a notice under the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the subject matter of the notices was compliant with all legal requirements, and the detention of goods was unwarranted and illegal as the necessary documents were in order. The Government Pleader contended that there was an omission in the transportation of goods as all required documents were not produced during inspection, but suggested that the goods could be released upon furnishing a bank guarantee for the tax and penalty amount demanded. The petitioner, confident in the legality of the goods' transit, agreed to provide the bank guarantee but expressed concerns about the continuous requirement to keep it alive without final orders from the authority.

The Court, after considering the submissions and records, disposed of the writ petition. It was noted that the issues raised were at a preliminary stage, and the Court was not inclined to adjudicate on merits at that point. In line with the Act's scheme, the petitioner was directed to submit a bank guarantee for the tax and penalty amount indicated in the notice and apply for the release of goods within two days. The 1st respondent was ordered to release the detained goods within twelve hours of receiving the bank guarantee, which was to remain valid for one month. The respondent was also instructed to complete the enquiry process, provide a fair opportunity to the petitioner, and communicate the order within four weeks. Failure to comply would release the petitioner from the obligation to maintain the bank guarantee beyond one month.