2022 (8) TMI 977 - HC - GST

Detention of goods alongwith the vehicle - detention of goods on the ground that same was not covered by valid documents - Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - The provisions of Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 dealing with detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit, permit the release of the goods upon payment of penalty, equal to 200 percent. The petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner is willing to furnish a bank guarantee, in terms of the provisions of Section 129(1)(a) of the Act and the learned Government Advocate, on instructions, would submit that nothing stands in the way of the respondent accepting the bank guarantee - the petitioner is granted liberty to furnish bank guarantee in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the Act, upon furnishing of which impugned order dated 28.06.2022, will stand quashed. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Permission to withdraw W.P.No.21525 of 2022 with liberty to file an appeal before the first appellate authority.
2. Challenge of the demand of tax and penalty in W.P.No.21524 of 2022.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought permission to withdraw W.P.No.21525 of 2022 with the liberty to file an appeal before the first appellate authority. The court granted the request, dismissing the petition as withdrawn but allowing the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks without reference to limitation, ensuring compliance with statutory conditions, including pre-deposit. This decision was made based on the endorsement provided by the petitioner's counsel.

2. In relation to W.P.No.21524 of 2022, the impugned order dated 28.06.2022 detained a vehicle alleging that it was not covered by valid documents. The petitioner denied these allegations and was granted liberty to challenge the demand of tax and penalty before the first Appellate Authority. The court highlighted the provisions of Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which deal with detention, seizure, and release of goods and conveyances in transit. The section mandates the release of goods upon payment of a penalty equal to 200 percent of the tax payable on the goods.

3. The petitioner expressed willingness to furnish a bank guarantee in accordance with the provisions of Section 129(1)(a) of the Act. The court acknowledged this submission and allowed the petitioner to furnish the bank guarantee. Upon furnishing the bank guarantee, the impugned order dated 28.06.2022 would be quashed, and the consignment in question would be released within 48 hours from the time of furnishing the bank guarantee to the respondent.

4. Consequently, W.P.No.21524 of 2022 was disposed of in the aforementioned terms, and the connected writ miscellaneous petition was closed without any costs imposed on either party.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Madras High Court covers the issues of permission to withdraw a petition with the liberty to file an appeal and the challenge of tax and penalty demands in another case, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and decisions made by the court.