Where High Court after considering amount of tax already paid by assessee, directed provisional release of seized goods upon executing a bond for total value of seized goods and furnishing a bank guarantee matching with remaining amount of tax and penalty, no review application against said order could be sustained.

Assessee Power of inspection, search and seizure — Furnishing of bond and bank guarantee — Provisional release of seized goods — High Court by its order in dispute granted provisionally release of seized goods to assessee upon executing a bond for total value of seized goods and furnishing bank guarantee of Rs. 50 lacs. — Revenue sought review of said order on ground only small part of tax demand had been secured by instant Court and no suitable directions had been issued to secure remaining tax demand — Held, in order in dispute court had duly recorded submission of revenue that as total tax demand comes to around of Rs. 13 crores assessee be directed to furnish bank guarantee of at least Rs.1 crore — In said order Court found that amount of tax demanded and adding 50 percent of penalty to same would came to 70 lakh — Taking into consideration tax already deposited and reversal of SGST credit which would around Rs. 22 lakhs, Court directed assessee to furnishes bank guarantee of Rs.50 lakhs and a bond for value of goods — No case was made out for review of said judgment and order — Application dismissed.

1. By this application, the applicant seeks review of the judgment and order dated 29.1.2019 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.16599 of 2018, whereby the Court had directed the applicants No.1 and 2 herein to forthwith provisionally release the seized goods of the respondent-original petitioner under sub-section (6) of section 67 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 upon the respondent executing a bond in form GST INS-04 for the total value of the seized goods and furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs.50 lacs.

2. The review is sought for on the ground that while the total tax demand was of Rs.13,03,57,862/-, only Rs.46,75,791/- has been secured by this Court and no suitable directions have been issued to secure the remaining tax demand. It is the case of the applicants that the relief claimed in the petition may not be granted as mentioned in paragraph 11 of the judgment.

3. Heard Mr.Nirzar Desai, learned senior standing counsel for the applicant and Hardik Modh, learned advocate for the respondent.

4. A perusal of the judgment and order dated 29.1.2019 reveals that this Court has duly recorded the submission of the learned senior standing counsel that in terms of the show cause notice, the total tax demand comes to around of Rs.13 crores and hence the relief claimed in the petition may not be granted and that, if at all, the Court is inclined to grant any relief as prayed for, the respondent (original petitioner) may be directed to furnish the bank guarantee of at least Rs.1 crore. This Court, after considering the submissions advanced by the learned senior standing counsel, has in paragraph 14 of the order recorded thus:

5. Thus, the aforesaid judgment and order dated 29.1.2019 has been passed after considering the submission made on behalf of the revenue that the total tax demand was of Rs.13,03,57,862/- and this Court has consciously granted the relief in terms of paragraph 14.1 of the petition. No case is, therefore, made out for review of the aforesaid judgment and order. The application, therefore, fails and is summarily rejected.

(HARSHA DEVANI, J)

(A. P. THAKER, J)

LEGAL REFERENCES

Similar Ripples

Questions

There is no question

Where High Court after considering amount of tax already paid by assessee, directed provisional release of seized goods upon executing a bond for total value of seized goods and furnishing a bank guarantee matching with remaining amount of tax and penalty, no review application against said order could be sustained.

Write your Comment

Generic

Reportdata/1362_fhtuzgD.pdf

Would you like to edit this news ? Edit

Select Format

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

Advanced

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

Add tags

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

PUBLISH IT

Don't sell
PUBLISH IT
Publish privately
SAVE AS DRAFT

Dont't publish now

Assessee

Power of inspection, search and seizure — Furnishing of bond and bank guarantee — Provisional release of seized goods — High Court by its order in dispute granted provisionally release of seized goods to assessee upon executing a bond for total value of seized goods and furnishing bank guarantee of Rs. 50 lacs. — Revenue sought review of said order on ground only small part of tax demand had been secured by instant Court and no suitable directions had been issued to secure remaining tax demand — Held, in order in dispute court had duly recorded submission of revenue that as total tax demand comes to around of Rs. 13 crores assessee be directed to furnish bank guarantee of at least Rs.1 crore — In said order Court found that amount of tax
demanded and adding 50 percent of penalty to same would came to 70 lakh — Taking into consideration tax already deposited and reversal of SGST credit which would around Rs. 22 lakhs, Court directed assessee to furnishes bank guarantee of Rs.50 lakhs and a bond for value
of goods — No case was made out for review of said judgment and order — Application dismissed.

1. By this application, the applicant seeks
review of the judgment and order dated 29.1.2019
passed by this Court in Special Civil Application
No.16599 of 2018, whereby the Court had directed
the applicants No.1 and 2 herein to forthwith
provisionally release the seized goods of the
respondent-original petitioner under sub-section
(6) of section 67 of the Central Goods and
Service Tax Act, 2017 upon the respondent
executing a bond in form GST INS-04 for the total
value of the seized goods and furnishing a bank
guarantee of Rs.50 lacs. 
2. The review is sought for on the ground
that while the total tax demand was of
Rs.13,03,57,862/-, only Rs.46,75,791/- has been
secured by this Court and no suitable directions
have been issued to secure the remaining tax
demand. It is the case of the applicants that the
relief claimed in the petition may not be granted
as mentioned in paragraph 11 of the judgment.

3. Heard Mr.Nirzar Desai, learned senior
standing counsel for the applicant and Hardik
Modh, learned advocate for the respondent.

4. A perusal of the judgment and order
dated 29.1.2019 reveals that this Court has duly
recorded the submission of the learned senior
standing counsel that in terms of the show cause
notice, the total tax demand comes to around of
Rs.13 crores and hence the relief claimed in the
petition may not be granted and that, if at all,
the Court is inclined to grant any relief as
prayed for, the respondent (original petitioner)
may be directed to furnish the bank guarantee of
at least Rs.1 crore. This Court, after
considering the submissions advanced by the
learned senior standing counsel, has in paragraph
14 of the order recorded thus:

“14. It is an admitted position that in terms
of the show cause notice, the total amount of
tax payable on the seized goods, totally
valued at Rs.15,58,59,711/- is
Rs.46,75,791/-. Adding 50% towards penalty,
the total amount would come to approximately
Rs.70 lakhs. The petitioner has already
deposited Rs.14,16,868/- by way of challan
and has reversed credit of SGST to the tune
of Rs.7,90,793/-, which comes to
approximately Rs.22 lakhs. Under the
circumstances, if the petitioner furnishes
bank guarantee of Rs.50 lakhs and a bond for
the value of the goods in FORM GST INS-04,
the interest of justice would be served.” 
5. Thus, the aforesaid judgment and order
dated 29.1.2019 has been passed after considering
the submission made on behalf of the revenue that
the total tax demand was of Rs.13,03,57,862/- and
this Court has consciously granted the relief in
terms of paragraph 14.1 of the petition. No case
is, therefore, made out for review of the
aforesaid judgment and order. The application,
therefore, fails and is summarily rejected.

(HARSHA DEVANI, J)

(A. P. THAKER, J)

3. Heard Mr.Nirzar Desai, learned senior
standing counsel for the applicant and Hardik
Modh, learned advocate for the respondent.

4. A perusal of the judgment and order
dated 29.1.2019 reveals that this Court has duly
recorded the submission of the learned senior
standing counsel that in terms of the show cause
notice, the total tax demand comes to around of
Rs.13 crores and hence the relief claimed in the
petition may not be granted and that, if at all,
the Court is inclined to grant any relief as
prayed for, the respondent (original petitioner)
may be directed to furnish the bank guarantee of
at least Rs.1 crore. This Court, after
considering the submissions advanced by the
learned senior standing counsel, has in paragraph
14 of the order recorded thus:

(HARSHA DEVANI, J)

(A. P. THAKER, J)

Hi Thakurani,
I want to withdraw in my Thakurani wallet
Thanks,

Select the reason for validity check

I feel great..the news is still good.please give the reason too..thanks..

Why do you think the News as invalid?” Please mention the reason.

I appreciate your effort. May I request you to select one of the reasons from below.
I am marking this post and your reason to Thakurani Moderators. They will take appropriate action.
Thanks,

Write your reason