2020 (9) TMI 683 - HC - GST

Detention of goods - goods detained for the reason that goods have been unloaded at a place other than the recorded destination - HELD THAT - The petitioner has not been served with a detention order so far, though the goods were detained from 09.09.2020. In the facts of the case, this Court is of the firm opinion that to meet the ends of justice, the petitioner get release of all goods and conveyance, on providing bank guarantee for the amount involved. The learned Government Pleader submits that the amount of tax and penalty together will come to ₹ 2,34,500/-. The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the respondent to release the goods and conveyance on the petitioner, providing bank guarantee for an amount of ₹ 2,34,500/-.

Summary

Issues: Detention of goods during transportation, compliance with CGST and SGST Rules, release of goods on providing bank guarantee, completion of adjudication proceedings

In this case, the petitioner purchased car tyres from a consignor in New Delhi and transported them to Aluva. Upon arrival, the respondent detained the goods, alleging that they were unloaded at a place different from the recorded destination. The petitioner argued that all transportation requirements under CGST and SGST Rules were met, and no further action was taken by the respondent after detention, causing potential irreparable harm. The respondent, represented by the Government Pleader, stated that the goods were detained pending further proceedings and adjudication due to the discrepancy in unloading location. However, no formal detention order was served to the petitioner despite the goods being held since 09.09.2020.

After hearing both parties, the Court noted the absence of a detention order and the potential injustice to the petitioner. The Court, in the interest of justice, directed the respondent to release the goods and conveyance upon the petitioner providing a bank guarantee amounting to ?2,34,500, which includes tax and penalty. The respondent was further instructed to conclude the adjudication proceedings within one week from the date of the judgment. This decision aimed to balance the rights of the petitioner with the need for proper adjudication, ensuring a swift resolution to the matter while safeguarding against any undue harm to the petitioner's interests.