IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Arun Bhansali, J.
Maruti Castings, Proprietor Nand Kumar Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6019/2021
Decided on : 14-09-2021
Bank Guarantee - Goods Release - Section 67(6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 67(6), Rule 140 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 67(6) of the Act and Rule 140 of the Rules, emphasizing the requirement for furnishing a bank guarantee for release of seized goods. The court referred to relevant case laws and highlighted the necessity to comply with the statutory provisions for release of goods.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed an application seeking vacation of an interim order dated 21/5/2021, which directed the release of seized goods without insisting on a bank guarantee. The petitioner argued that the seizure of goods was illegal and the interim order was justified.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provisions of Section 67(6) of the Act and Rule 140 of the Rules necessitate the furnishing of a bank guarantee for the release of seized goods. The court emphasized the need to comply with the statutory provisions and allowed the respondents' application, modifying the interim order to require the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee for the release of the seized goods.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the seizure of goods, the applicability of Section 67(6) of the Act, and the necessity of furnishing a bank guarantee for the release of seized goods.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of Section 67(6) of the Act and Rule 140 of the Rules must be adhered to for the release of seized goods, emphasizing the need for compliance with the statutory requirements.
Final Decision: The court allowed the respondents' application, modifying the interim order to require the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee for the release of the seized goods.
JUDGMENT
1. The matter comes up on an application filed by the respondents No.1, 3, 4 & 5 under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India seeking vacation of the interim order dated 21/5/2021.
2. By order dated 21/5/2021, a coordinate bench of this Court passed the following order:
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 subject to submitting a surety bond of the equivalent amount of the value of the goods by the petitioner. The petitioner shall not be insisted for submitting the Bank guarantee."
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the directions of the Court that the petitioner shall not be insisted for submitting the Bank guarantee is contrary to the provisions of Section 67(6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 ('the Act') read with Rule 140 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Rules, 2017 ('the Rules').
4. It is submitted that provisions of Section 67 (6) envisage release of goods on provisional basis, upon execution of a bond and furnishing of a security, in such manner and of such quantum, as may be prescribed, and as per Rule 140 of the Rules, the seized goods may be released on a provisional basis upon execution of a bond for the value of the goods and furnishing of a security in the form of a bank guarantee equivalent to the amount of applicable tax, interest & penalty payable.
5. It is submitted that the petitioner filed an application (Annex.10) seeking release of goods as per the provisions of Section 67(6) of the Act and indicated that it was ready to comply with the procedure. Based on the said application (Annex.10), a communication dated 11/5/2021 (Annex.15) was issued indicating the requirement to furnish a bond of Rs.2,71,07,354/- and a security in the form of a bank guarantee of Rs.1,51,80,118/- as per Section 67(6) of the Act 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.
6. Reliance was placed on State of U.P. & Ors. v. Kay Pan Fragrance Pvt. Ltd. : (2020) 5 SCC 811, M/s. Maa Karni Traders & Anr. v. 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. v. State Tax Officer : S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2540/2020, decided on 29/6/2020.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner made vehement submissions with reference to various provisions of the Act that the petitioner is a registered person under Section 25 of the Act and as such in the circumstances of petitioner's case, issues have to be dealt with under Section 35(6) of the Act read with Section 73 or 74 of the Act. Action of the respondents in resorting to Section 67(2) of the Act in seizing the goods is not valid and consequently provisions of Section 67(6) do not apply and, therefore, as the entire action of the respondents in seizing the goods of the petitioner itself is invalid, the interim order granted by the Court is justified and the same does not call for any vacation/modification.
8. It was sought to be emphasized by learned counsel that besides the fact that as the petitioner is a registered person, as such provisions of Section 35 (6) read with Sections 73 & 74 of the Act only a
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.