M/S Ajaymeru Float Glass Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that while Section 67(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, provides for the provisional release of detained goods, the petitioners had approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus instead of following the statutory procedure. The Court was of the view that the petitioners ought to have submitted a specific application for the provisional release of the goods. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioners to submit such an application under Section 67(6) of the Act within one month from the date of the order. The concerned authorities are then to consider this application and pass an appropriate order within fifteen days thereafter. The petition was disposed of with these directions.

Facts

M/s Ajaymeru Float Glass Private Limited and its Director, Yash Goyal, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court. They sought a direction from the respondents (Union of India and various CGST authorities, and the State of Rajasthan) to provisionally release seized goods. The petitioners contended that a prayer for provisional release of the vehicle was included in their reply. The respondents are the Union of India, the Principal Commissioner CGST & Central Excise Jaipur, the Deputy Commissioner CGST & Central Excise Division-G, the Assistant Commissioner Anti-Evasion, the Inspector Anti-Evasion, the Inspector CGST Ajmer, and the State of Rajasthan.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provisionally release the seized goods, given the existence of a statutory provision for such release. Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that their reply to the proceedings included a prayer for the provisional release of the vehicle, which ought to have been considered by the authorities. They approached the High Court seeking a mandamus as a recourse. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the Court's observation implies that the petitioners' initial approach was not the prescribed procedural route.