2020 (8) TMI 283 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - Release of detained goods - at the time of inspection or detention of goods the transporter could not produce all the documents required for establishing that the goods is under valid transit - 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.P7 and applies for release of goods by enclosing a copy of this order within two days from today. The 2nd respondent shall release the goods detained under Ext.P6 and subjected to enquiry in Ext.P7 within twelve hours from the date and time of receipt of bank guarantee - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to detention and demand orders under CGST Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the legality of orders Exts.P6 and P7 issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 129 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the subject matter of the orders was compliant with all legal requirements, and they were able to demonstrate that the E-Way Bill was generated and produced for inspection within the given time frame. The petitioner contended that the proceedings initiated through Exts.P6 and P7 were unwarranted and illegal.

The Government Pleader raised objections to the maintainability of the writ petition, pointing out an omission or illegality in the transportation of goods. It was noted that the transporter failed to produce all necessary documents during the inspection, which are required to establish the validity of the goods in transit. The Government Pleader highlighted that Section 129 of the Act not only deals with detention but also provides for the release of goods, subject to the petitioner complying with the statutory provisions. The Government Pleader suggested that if the petitioner sought the release of goods, they could furnish a bank guarantee for the tax and penalty amount demanded through Ext.P7.

In response, the petitioner's advocate stated that while they were willing to provide the bank guarantee, the authority had not given a final decision on the matter, leading to the petitioner having to maintain the bank guarantee continuously. The advocate also highlighted the additional costs incurred by the petitioner due to the bank guarantee being provided at a substantial commission by the banker.

Upon considering the arguments from both sides and examining the record, the Court disposed of the writ petition. The Court decided that the issues raised were at a preliminary stage and declined to entertain the petition or adjudicate on the merits at that point. The Court ordered the petitioner to submit a bank guarantee for the tax and penalty amount specified in Ext.P7 and requested the release of goods within a specified time frame. The 2nd respondent was directed to release the detained goods and complete the necessary enquiry within the given deadlines. Failure to comply with the Court's directions would relieve the petitioner from the obligation to maintain the bank guarantee beyond the specified period.