2024 (6) TMI 475 - HC - GST

Seeking release of seized goods before Assembly Election process - dispute over method of release - HELD THAT - There is a direction in terms of which goods are to be released, is true. However, the proceedings under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are to be processed and for that purpose, as a matter of State Policy, release is permissible only if a Bond and Bank Guarantee are given for the worth of goods in question. There is another point that goes against the complainant inasmuch as he had specifically told to the said 1st accused-respondent in writing on 22.09.2023, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-R8 that the value of the goods in question was only Rs. 46,29,487/- and not a whopping sum of Rs. 3,36,00,000/-. Therefore, now he cannot say that he will not give bank guarantee for the worth of goods. The above apart, the value of subject goods is shown to be less than what the complainant himself has quoted in his letter dated 22.09.2023 at Annexure-R8 and now the latest letter issued by the 1st accused-respondent on 6.3.2024 shows the value to be only Rs. 13,36,194/-. It is not the case of complainant that he has any financial difficulty and therefore, he cannot comply with he requirement of rule in question. Therefore, the complainant can get the goods released on giving a Bank Guarantee for this lesser sum. The complaint contempt is disposed off with a direction to the 1st respondent to release the subject goods on the complainant furnishing a Bond and Bank Guarantee, without brooking any delay.

Summary

Issues involved: Alleged violation of a Single Judge's order, release of seized goods before Assembly Election process, dispute over method of release (indemnity bond vs. bank guarantee), compliance with Central Goods and Services Tax Rules.

Violation of Single Judge's Order:
The complaint alleged violation of a Single Judge's order dated 26.07.2023 in W.P. No. 15636 of 2023, directing conditional release of seized articles post-elections. The complainant argued that the 1st respondent is bound by this order and must release the goods seized before the Assembly Election process, in line with the Election Code of Conduct.

Dispute over Method of Release:
The respondent-accused opposed the complaint, stating that releasing goods via indemnity bond is impractical and suggested a bank guarantee instead. Referring to Rule 140(1) of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which mandates release of seized goods with a bank guarantee, the respondent argued for compliance with this rule.

Compliance with Central Goods and Services Tax Rules:
After considering the arguments, the court noted the direction for release of goods but emphasized that as per State Policy and the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, release is permissible only with a bond and bank guarantee for the worth of the goods. The court also highlighted discrepancies in the value of the goods as stated by the complainant and the respondent, ultimately directing the 1st respondent to release the goods upon the complainant furnishing a bond and bank guarantee for the revised, lesser sum without delay.