9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 726X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5/2021. By order dated 21/5/2021, a coordinate bench of this Court passed the following order: "Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a sum of Rs. 50 lac has been recovered under duress from the petitioner without even issuing show cause notice treating it as under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017. Learned counsel submits that the goods which have been seized are all duly accounted for and the same could not have been seized. The entire seizure is illegal. Learned counsel submits that he is ready to submit surety bond instead of asking for a Bank guarantee. Issue notice of the writ petition as well as stay application, returnable within eight weeks. In the meanwhile, the goods lying with the respondent/s shall be released s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Rule 140 of the Rules for provisional release of seized goods. It is submitted that the respondents have passed the order in terms of the relevant provisions, which cannot be faulted and, therefore, the direction to release the goods without insisting for submitting the bank guarantee deserves to be vacated. Reliance was placed on State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Kay Pan Fragrance Pvt. Ltd. : (2020) 5 SCC 811, M/s. Maa Karni Traders & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. : I.A.(Civil)/977/2021 in WP (C) 1003/2021 passed by Gauhati High Court on 10/6/2021 and JVG Super Cargo Service Ltd. vs. State Tax Officer : S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2540/2020, decided on 29/6/2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner made vehement submissions with reference to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing without jurisdiction, the interim order granted by the Court does not call for any interference. Further submissions were made that the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents have no relevance to the case in hand as the said judgments/order pertain to transporters and not registered persons. Learned counsel for the respondents reiterated that the action taken by the respondents is in consonance with the statutory provisions, the seizure is valid and CGST authorities have the jurisdiction in terms of Section 6(2)(b) of the Act and as such, the interim order dated 25/5/2021 deserves to be vacated/modified. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material availa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rities at the principal place of business and additional places of business of the petitioner firm. It is claimed by the respondents, based on the 'Panchnama' dated 31/3/2021 that physical stocks available at the principal place of business/additional places of business did not match with the books of the petitioner during the course of inspection. Various submissions have been made by learned counsel for the petitioner seeking to explain the circumstances in which there was a mismatch between the two and seeking to emphasize that the provisions of Section 35(6) read with Section 73 or 74 only could have been invoked in the given circumstances. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, prima facie it cannot be said that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the State to release the seized goods subject to deposit of security other than cash or bank guarantee or in the alternative indemnity bond equal to the value of tax and penalty to the satisfaction of assessing authority, inter alia quoting the provisions of Section 67 and Rule 140 and 141 observed as under: "9. For the sake of consistency, we have no hesitation in observing that the High Court in all such cases ought to have relegated the assessees before the appropriate Authority for complying with the procedure prescribed in Section 67 of the Act read with Rules as applicable for release (including provisional release) of seized goods." ................ "12. There is no reason why any other indulgence need be shown to the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed provisions need not be given effect to in respect of all the cases referred in the affidavit by the State Government before this Court and fresh cases which may have been filed or likely to be filed before the High Court in connection with the subject matter of these appeals, by all concerned and are deemed to have been set aside/modified in terms of this order. In view of this order, all the Writ Petitions pending before the High Court, list whereof has been furnished in the affidavit are deemed to have been disposed of accordingly. We have passed this common order to cover all cases of seizure during the relevant period, to obviate inconsistency in application of Law and also to do away with multiple appeals required to be filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
