Assessee Seizure, detention and confiscation — Appellant filed present writ petition for seeking declaration under that Rule 140(1) of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 was un-constitutional as well quashing seizure notice and order passed by Section 129 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Held, applying ratio laid down in case of Renji Lal Damodaran v. State Tax Officer [(2018) 97 taxmann.com 677 (Ker)] — In respect of furnishing bank guarantee, it is only required for tax and penalty which could be imposed and value of goods could be secured by a bond in FORM GST INS-04 — On similar lines, Appellant was directed to furnish bank guarantee for tax and penalty as well as bond for value of goods — Petition Dismissed.
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act, supplied material to Kollam, as seen from Exts.P2 to P5 invoices. Ext.P6 consignment note, however, did not contain the details of the vehicle used for the transport. The vehicle and the goods detained under Section 129(1) of the SGST Act, the petitioner filed this writ petition.
2. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought the following reliefs:
(i) to declare Rule 140 of the CGST/SGST Rules, to the extent to which it directs collection of security in the form of simple bond for the value of goods and bank guarantee equivalent to the amount of applicable tax, interest and penalty payable as a mandatory condition for the release of the goods detained under section 12993) of the Act as violative of Article 301 of the Constitution;
(ii) issue a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, calling for the records leading to the issue of Ext.P9 order and Ext.10 notice and after scrutinizing the same, to strike down and quash them;
(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, orders or directions directing the First Respondent to refrain from proceeding further under section 129 of the Act based on Ext.P9 and P10;
(iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, orders or directions, directing the First Respondent to release the goods to the petitioner without collecting any security under S.129(1)(c).
3. The learned Division Bench of this Court in Renji Lal Damodaran Vs. State Tax Officer1 dealt with an identical issue. Applying the ratio of that judgment, I direct that respondent authorities to release the petitioner's goods and vehicle on his "furnishing Bank Guarantee for tax and penalty found due and a bond for the value of goods in the form as prescribed under Rule 140(1) of the CGST Rules".
With the above direction I dispose of the writ petition.
Sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
JUDGE