2019 (12) TMI 325 - HC - GST

Detention of vehicle alongwith goods - Section 129 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act - HELD THAT - On a perusal of the detention order, it is seen that the detention of the vehicle was on the account of the fact that the documents produced by the driver of the vehicle showed the consignment as moving from Kasargod to Kolhapur, whereas the detention of the goods was at Perumbavoor - the detention of the vehicle and the goods cannot be said to be unjustified. It is directed that if the petitioner furnishes a bank guarantee for the tax and penalty amounts determined, then the 1 st respondent shall release the goods and vehicle to the petitioner - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Detention order under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act; Justification of detention based on discrepancy in documents; Release of goods on furnishing a bank guarantee.

Detention Order under Section 129 of the CGST Act:
The judgment pertains to a writ petition challenging the Ext.P4 detention order issued under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act. The petitioner contested the detention of the vehicle and goods, arguing that the documents indicated the consignment was moving from one place to another, leading to a discrepancy as the detention occurred at a different location. The court reviewed the situation and concluded that the detention was not unjustified based on the discrepancy highlighted in the documents.

Justification of Detention Based on Discrepancy in Documents:
The court noted that the detention of the vehicle and goods was deemed reasonable due to the discrepancy identified in the documents presented by the driver. The documents suggested the consignment was intended to move from Kasargod to Kolhapur, whereas the detention took place at Perumbavoor. This discrepancy formed the basis for the detention order, and the court found it to be a valid reason for the action taken.

Release of Goods on Furnishing a Bank Guarantee:
In response to the petitioner's willingness to clear the goods by providing a bank guarantee for the tax and penalty amounts specified in the Ext.P7 order, the court directed the 1st respondent to release the goods and vehicle upon the petitioner furnishing the bank guarantee. Furthermore, the court instructed the respondent to transfer the files to the adjudicating authority for further adjudication in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The writ petition was disposed of based on these directions, providing a resolution to the matter at hand.