Renji Lal Damodaran vs. State Tax Officer

The first contention is that there is no cause for directing a Bank Guarantee to be furnished. The Section specifically speaks of a Bank Guarantee and we find that the appellant had agreed to furnish a Bank Guarantee before the learned Single Judge. We do not think any interference can be caused on that aspect.

The second contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is that the Bank Guarantee need be furnished only for the tax and penalty which could be imposed and the value of goods could be secured by a bond in the form FORM GST INS-04. We need only refer to Rule 140(1) of the CGST Rules, which is as follows: “140(1). The seized goods may be released on a provisional basis upon execution of a bond for the value of the goods in FORM GST INS-04 and furnishing of a security in the form of a bank guarantee equivalent to the amount of applicable tax, interest and penalty payable. Explanation: For the purposes of the rules under the provisions of this Chapter, the “applicable tax” shall include central tax and State tax or central tax and the Union territory tax, as the case may be and the cess, if any, payable under the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 (15 of 2017).”

In such circumstances, we modify the judgment of the learned Single Judge and direct release of the goods on the appellant 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 as extracted herein above. With the above observation, the appeal would stand disposed of.