Vts Steels VS The Assistant State Tax Officer

The petitioner is involved in proceedings under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) and State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) Act, 2017. These proceedings typically relate to the detention, seizure, and release of goods in transit. The petitioner has expressed a grievance regarding the handling of this process by the authorities.

According to the petitioner, they are willing to comply with the provisions of Section 129(1)(c) of the Act, which allows for the release of detained goods upon furnishing a security equivalent to the amount payable, in the form of either a bank guarantee or a bond. Despite this willingness and readiness to furnish the bank guarantee, the first respondent, which is likely the tax authority or an official responsible for the enforcement of the Act, has refused to accept the bank guarantee offered by the petitioner. Consequently, the goods remain detained, pending the adjudication of the notice issued under Section 129.

The petitioner’s grievance centers on the refusal of the first respondent to follow the procedures outlined in Section 129(1)(c). This refusal has caused undue delay in the release of the detained goods, leading to potential financial losses and operational disruptions for the petitioner. The petitioner argues that the acceptance of the bank guarantee should suffice to secure the release of the goods, as per the statutory provisions, until the adjudication of the notice is completed.

In essence, the petitioner seeks relief from the court to compel the first respondent to accept the bank guarantee and proceed with the release of the detained goods, in accordance with the provisions of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, thereby allowing the petitioner to resume their business operations while the legal process regarding the notice is ongoing.

The petitioner is involved in proceedings under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) and State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) Act, 2017. The main issue presented by the petitioner is the refusal of the first respondent to accept a bank guarantee and release the detained goods, despite the petitioner’s willingness to comply with the requirements outlined in Section 129(1)(c) of the Act. The petitioner contends that they are ready to provide the bank guarantee as per the statutory provisions to secure the release of their goods, but the first respondent’s refusal is causing undue hardship.

During the hearing, both the petitioner’s counsel and the learned Government Pleader presented their arguments. After considering these submissions, the court opined that there is no justification for the first respondent’s refusal to release the goods and the conveyance if the petitioner is ready to comply with the provisions of Section 129(1)(c). The court acknowledged that the petitioner’s compliance with this provision should suffice to allow for the release of the detained goods, pending the adjudication of the notice.

As a result, the court decided to dispose of the writ petition by directing the first respondent to release the goods and the conveyance once the petitioner complies with the requirement of Section 129(1)(c). This decision ensures that the petitioner’s goods are released while the final proceedings under Section 129 are still pending, thereby addressing the petitioner’s grievance.

The petitioner is involved in legal proceedings under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) and State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) Act, 2017. The core issue in this case is the petitioner’s grievance regarding the refusal of the first respondent to accept a bank guarantee and release the detained goods, despite the petitioner’s expressed willingness to comply with the provisions outlined in Section 129(1)(c) of the Act.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner is ready to furnish a bank guarantee in accordance with Section 129(1)(c), which stipulates the conditions for the release of detained goods pending adjudication. However, the first respondent has been unwilling to accept this bank guarantee and consequently has not released the goods, causing a dispute.

The court, having heard the arguments from both the petitioner’s counsel and the learned Government Pleader, opined that there should be no valid reason for the first respondent to refuse the release of the goods if the petitioner complies with the specified provision in Section 129(1)(c). This provision mandates that the detained goods and conveyance can be released upon the provision of a security equivalent to the amount payable.

The court concluded that the writ petition should be resolved by directing the first respondent to release the detained goods and conveyance promptly upon the petitioner meeting the conditions set forth in Section 129(1)(c) of the CGST/SGST Act. This decision underscores the petitioner’s entitlement to have their goods and conveyance released without undue delay once they comply with the legal requirements specified in the Act.

The petitioner is involved in proceedings under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) and State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) Act, 2017. The petitioner’s main grievance is that despite their willingness to comply with Section 129(1)(c), the first respondent refuses to accept a bank guarantee and release the detained goods pending the adjudication of the notice.

Upon hearing the arguments from both the petitioner’s counsel and the learned Government Pleader, the court opines that there is no justification for the first respondent to refuse the release of the goods and the conveyance if the petitioner complies with the provisions of Section 129(1)(c).

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to release the detained goods and conveyance without any further delay upon the petitioner fulfilling the conditions outlined in Section 129(1)(c) of the CGST/SGST Act. Additionally, if the proceedings under Section 129 result in an adverse order against the petitioner, the bank guarantee provided by the petitioner will not be invoked for thirty days from the date of the order. This allows the petitioner time to seek appropriate relief from the appellate authority.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: