No seizure of goods of bank guarantee of sufficient amount is furnished
2019 TaxPub(GST) 0184 (All-HC)
S.A. Products v. State of U.P. & Ors.
CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017
–Seizure of goods–Detention of vehicle along with goodsValidity of––The writ petition was disposed of with the observation that assessee should furnish the security in the form of Bank Guarantee before the authority concerned, who, in turn, thereafter consider the release of goods and vehicle and pass appropriate orders expeditiously within a period of ten days.–Assessee’s goods along with vehicle was seized under section 129. Assessee submitted that he had already paid required tax for the goods which were being transported. In fact more tax amount was deposited and the authorities without proper application of mind have seized the goods alongwith vehicle. Held: As per Rule 140, in case the owner of the goods furnishes the security in the form of bank guarantee equivalent to amount of applicable tax, interest and penalty payable, the authorities can consider the release of goods and vehicle. The writ petition was disposed of with the observation that petitioner should furnish the security in the form of bank guarantee before the authority concerned, who, in turn, thereafter consider the release of goods and the vehicle and pass appropriate orders expeditiously within a period of ten days.
Central Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 129
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee’s favour
A.Y. :
IN THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
RITU RAJ AWASTHI & ALOK MATHUR, JJ.
S.A. Products v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Misc. Bench No. 3349 of 2019
14 February, 2019
Petitioner by: Mohammad Babar Khan, Anoop Kumar Vajpayee
Respondent by: C.S.C.
ORDER
Mr. Antariksha Srivastava, Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad Unit-5, Lucknow appear in person before this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned detention Order, dated 18-1-2019 and consequential Notice, dated 18-1-2019 issued by the opposite party No. 3 annexed as Annexure Nos. 1 & 2 to this writ petition.
The brief submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has already paid the required tax for the goods which were being transported. In fact more tax amount has been deposited and the authorities without proper application of mind have seized the goods alongwith vehicle. It is also submitted that e-way bill was not required to be submitted for the same as the goods were valuing below Rs. 50,000.
Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instruction submits that the correct position is that the petitioner had not paid the tax for the Tobacco bags and the tax which was deposited by the petitioner was only with respect to the Pan Masala.
Moreover, in the seizure memo the quantity of the goods was much more than mentioned in the tax invoice. It is also submitted that the assessment order has been passed in exercise of power under section 129 i.e. INS 04.
He further submits that in case the petitioner wants to get all the goods and vehicle released then petitioner may submit a Bank Guarantee of the valuation of the amount of applicable tax, interest and penalty payable.
Mohammad Babar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner will submit the Bank Guarantee in this regard.
However, the opposite parties may be directed to release the goods and vehicle thereafter.
We have considered the submissions and perused the provision of release of goods under Rule 140, wherein in case the owner of the goods furnishes the security in the form of Bank Guarantee equivalent to the amount of applicable tax, interest and penalty payable, the authorities can consider the release of the goods and vehicle.
In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the observation that petitioner shall furnish the security in the form of Bank Guarantee as noted above before the authority concerned, the concerned authority, thereafter may consider the release of of the goods and the vehicle and pass appropriate orders expeditiously say within a period of ten days thereafter.
In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the authority concerned he is at liberty to challenge the same before the appropriate Forum.
