2021 (2) TMI 334 - HC - GST

Release the consignment along with the vehicle - Section 129 of the Goods and Services Tax Act - HELD THAT - It is indubitable that the petitioner has a remedy of approaching the 1st respondent itself by offering a bank guarantee, which Authority, will thereupon, be obligated to consider it for release of the consignment in question. I am therefore, of the view that such a benefit must be given to the petitioner also. This writ petition to the limited extent of leaving liberty to the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent with a bank guarantee for the amounts covered by Exts.P3 to P3(c); and if this is done within a period of three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Impugning Exts.P3 to P3(c) notices issued under Section 129 of the GST Act.
2. Refusal to release consignment and vehicle by the 1st respondent.
3. Petitioner willing to offer a bank guarantee for the amounts covered by the notices.
4. Interpretation of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.17379/2020 regarding invoking the remedy of release of consignment with a bank guarantee.
5. Direction to approach the 1st respondent for release of consignment based on a bank guarantee.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the legality of Exts.P3 to P3(c) notices issued under Section 129 of the GST Act, claiming them to be illegal, unlawful, and unjustified. The petitioner sought the release of the consignment and vehicle held by the 1st respondent. The petitioner expressed readiness to provide a bank guarantee for the amounts specified in the notices to secure the release of the goods. The petitioner approached the court through a writ petition to address the refusal of the 1st respondent to release the consignment.

2. The Government Pleader, Smt. Thushara James, argued that as per the judgment in W.P.(C)No.17379/2020, the petitioner should directly approach the 1st respondent with a bank guarantee to seek the release of the consignment. The Government Pleader emphasized the need for the petitioner to follow the established procedure and engage with the 1st respondent for the adjudication process related to the impugned notices. It was suggested that the petitioner should not have approached the court but should have directly dealt with the 1st respondent.

3. The judge, after considering the submissions and evaluating the precedent set by the judgment in W.P.(C)No.17379/2020, concluded that the petitioner indeed had the option to approach the 1st respondent with a bank guarantee for the amounts specified in the notices. The judge acknowledged that the petitioner should be granted the opportunity to avail themselves of this remedy. Consequently, the judge allowed the writ petition to the extent that the petitioner was given the liberty to present a bank guarantee to the 1st respondent within three days. Upon submission of the bank guarantee, the 1st respondent was directed to promptly consider the release of the consignment and vehicle covered by the notices. The adjudication process under the GST Act was to be completed within one month from the date of furnishing the bank guarantee.

4. In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the directive for the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent with a bank guarantee within the specified timeline for the release of the consignment and vehicle. The judgment emphasized the importance of following the prescribed procedure and engaging with the relevant authority for the resolution of disputes related to the GST Act.