2019 (8) TMI 341 - HC - GST

Detention of goods - Section 129 (1) of CGST Act, 2017 - Part B/E-Way Bill was also generated and produced for inspection - HELD THAT - The issues raised are at preliminary stage and this Court is not convinced to entertain the writ petition and adjudicate upon merits at this stage. 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.P11 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.P9 and subjected to enquiry in Ext.P10 within twelve hours from the date and time of receipt of bank guarantee.

Issues: Challenge to legality of notices under CGST Act, maintainability of writ petition, detention of goods compliance with law, bank guarantee submission, release of detained goods, completion of enquiry.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Notices under CGST Act:
The petitioner challenged the legality of notices Exts.P10, P11, and P12 issued by the 1st respondent under the CGST Act, 2017. Ext.P9 was an order of detention under Section 129(1) of the Act, while Ext.P5 was issued under Section 129(3). The petitioner argued that the subject matter of the notices was compliant with all Act requirements, and the petitioner could demonstrate timely compliance with the production of Part B/E-Way Bill for inspection.

2. Maintainability of Writ Petition:
The Government Pleader contended that the writ petition's maintainability was in question. She argued that there was an omission or illegality in the transportation of goods as the transporter failed to produce all required documents during inspection. She highlighted that Section 129 of the Act provides for detention and release of goods, subject to compliance by the petitioner. The Government Pleader suggested that the petitioner could furnish a bank guarantee for the tax and penalty amount demanded through Ext.P11 for the release of detained goods.

3. Detention of Goods Compliance with Law:
In response, the petitioner's counsel stated that the detention of goods was unwarranted as the goods' transit was in accordance with the law. The petitioner was willing to provide a bank guarantee but expressed concerns about the authority not passing final orders, leading to the continuous need to keep the bank guarantee active. The counsel also highlighted the substantial commission charged by the bank for providing the guarantee.

4. Decision and Order:
After considering the submissions and records, the Court disposed of the writ petition. The Court refrained from adjudicating on the merits at that stage, citing that the issues were at a preliminary stage. To conform to the Act's scheme, the Court issued specific directions regarding the submission of a bank guarantee, release of detained goods, completion of the enquiry, and the timeline for passing orders.

5. Bank Guarantee Submission and Release of Detained Goods:
The Court directed the petitioner to submit a bank guarantee for the tax and penalty amount specified in Ext.P11 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. The bank guarantee was to remain valid for six weeks, and the respondent was instructed to complete the enquiry, provide a fair opportunity to the petitioner, and communicate the order within four weeks.

This detailed analysis covers the various issues raised in the legal judgment, addressing the challenge to notices, maintainability of the writ petition, compliance with detention laws, bank guarantee submission, release of detained goods, and the Court's decision and specific directions.

← Previous Next →