2021 (10) TMI 631 - HC - GST

Release of detained goods - It is the case of the petitioner that he is entitled to get release of the vehicle on complying with the appropriate conditions that may be fixed by this Court - section 129(1) of the CGST Act - HELD THAT - It is the settled position of law, especially in view of the decision in THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH ORS. VERSUS M/S KAY PAN FRAGRANCE PVT. LTD. 2019 (12) TMI 95 - SUPREME COURT that the writ petition seeking direction to release the goods detained under section 129 of the CGST Act shall not be entertained by the High Court. This is all the more so since section 129 of the CGST Act is a complete code by itself and provides opportunity for obtaining reliefs by the assessees as specified therein. In the said circumstances, the assessee is not without any remedy. Remedy is available under the CGST Act itself. The proceedings that has now been initiated under section 129 of the CGST Act ought to culminate in a time bound manner as stipulated therein - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to detention of goods under section 129 of the CGST Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the detention of goods under section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner's lorry was seized along with an excavator, leading to the issuance of an order of detention under section 129(1) of the CGST Act. The petitioner claimed entitlement to the release of the vehicle upon complying with appropriate conditions set by the Court.

The High Court cited the settled legal position, particularly referencing the decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kay Pan Fragrance Pvt. Ltd., which established that writ petitions seeking the release of goods detained under section 129 of the CGST Act cannot be entertained by the High Court. It was emphasized that section 129 of the CGST Act is a comprehensive code in itself, providing avenues for relief to taxpayers as specified within the Act. Consequently, the Court noted that the assessee has remedies available under the CGST Act and, therefore, declined to entertain the writ petition.

Despite dismissing the writ petition, the Court directed that the proceedings initiated under section 129 of the CGST Act must be concluded promptly in accordance with the stipulated timelines. The second respondent was instructed to complete the adjudication proceedings expeditiously, within a maximum period of 7 days from the receipt of the judgment. Additionally, the Court highlighted that any application made by the petitioner for the release of the vehicle should be duly considered in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition with the aforementioned directions, emphasizing the need for timely resolution of proceedings initiated under section 129 of the CGST Act while ensuring the petitioner's right to seek release of the vehicle in compliance with legal procedures.