Shri Nabakishore Panda S/O Shri Jadunath Panda vs. State Of Rajasthan

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Nabakishore Panda, dispatched 30,000 kgs of cumin seeds on October 11, 2023, through a vehicle to M/s. Durga Enterprises, Kolkata. During transit, the Assistant Commissioner of State GST (Respondent No. 2) detained the vehicle and goods on October 21, 2023, issuing Form GST MOV-2 for verification and inspection due to suspected discrepancies in the accompanying documents. The petitioner's primary grievance was that the goods were perishable and sought their release. The High Court, on December 2, 2023, directed that if the petitioner applied for provisional release and furnished a bank guarantee as per rules, the goods would be released on a provisional basis, subject to the final outcome of the petition. The petitioner subsequently confirmed that the goods were provisionally released upon furnishing a bank guarantee and surety bond.

Held

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the perishable nature of the goods. It noted the respondents' submission that a statutory provision exists for provisional release under Section 67 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017, read with Rules 140 & 141 of the CGST/RGST Rules, 2017, and that the petitioner could approach the Competent Authority. Considering the perishable nature of the goods, the Court directed that if the petitioner applied for provisional release before the Authority and furnished the required bank guarantee and surety bond, the goods would be released on a provisional basis. This release was made subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Subsequently, the petitioner confirmed that the goods had been provisionally released. Therefore, the Court found no further interference necessary. The respondent No. 2 was granted liberty to proceed in accordance with law regarding the proceedings initiated by Form MOV-2 dated October 21, 2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the provisional release of detained goods, which are alleged to be perishable in nature, pending further proceedings by the GST authorities? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the goods were perishable and therefore ought to be released provisionally to prevent loss. The petitioner sought directions from the Court for the release of the detained goods and vehicle. Revenue's Argument: The respondents (State of Rajasthan and Union of India) argued that there is a statutory mechanism for the provisional release of detained goods under Section 67 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017, read with Rules 140 & 141 of the CGST/RGST Rules, 2017. They submitted that the petitioner could approach the Competent Authority for such release.