2018 (4) TMI 608 - HC - GST

Detention of goods - absence of Transit Declaration Form (TDF) - penalty - Held that - in view of the fact that the goods have been seized on a single reason of absence of TDF without any other allegation in respect of illegal import of the goods into the State of U.P. the writ petition disposed off with a direction that subject to the petitioner furnishing security of the amount demanded in the shape of indemnity bond as provided under Rule 140 the seized goods and the Truck may be released forthwith in favor of the petitioner. Penalty - Held that - the matter is still pending before the Proper Officer - penalty proceedings are not entered into. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to order under UPGST Act, penalty notice under Section 129(3) of the Act, detention of goods for absence of Transit Declaration Form (TDF), pending penalty proceedings, seizure of goods, release of goods upon furnishing security.

Analysis:
1. Challenge to Order and Penalty Notice: The petitioner filed a writ petition to challenge the order dated 11.11.2017 passed under Section 129(1) of the UPGST Act and the penalty notice issued under Section 129(3) of the Act. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the goods were detained due to the absence of Transit Declaration Form (TDF) while all other documents for the goods' movement were in order. The penalty proceedings were pending, and the court refrained from delving into the validity of the penalty at that stage.

2. Detention of Goods for TDF: The goods were detained solely due to the absence of the Transit Declaration Form (TDF) on 09.11.2017. However, all other documents related to the movement of goods from Punjab to West Bengal were found to be in order, with no discrepancies in the goods' description or quantity. The petitioner later downloaded and submitted the TDF in response to the penalty notice.

3. Seizure of Goods and Release: While the penalty proceedings were ongoing, the court addressed the seizure of goods. Since the goods were seized only due to the absence of TDF without any other allegations of illegal import into the State of U.P., the court directed the release of the seized goods and the truck to the petitioner upon furnishing security in the form of an indemnity bond as per Rule 140. The release was subject to the final order in the penalty proceedings, ensuring compliance with the outcome of the penalty decision.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition by allowing the release of the seized goods and the truck upon the petitioner furnishing security in the form of an indemnity bond, while refraining from interfering in the ongoing penalty proceedings.