Garg Oil Traders vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Garg Oil Traders, is challenging an order concerning GST. The total tax, penalty, and fine disputed amount to Rs. 8,80,980/-. The petitioner sought to deposit Rs. 2 Lacs in cash and provide a surety for the remaining amount to secure the release of goods. The Court considered an application to condone a delay in filing a review petition and a recall of a previous order. The goods had not been released, and the State counsel sought time for instructions. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 2 Lacs in cash and furnish a bank guarantee for the remaining penalty amount for the provisional release of goods within 10 days.

Held

The Court condoned the delay of 69 days in filing the review petition/application, allowing CM-11721-CWP-2023. The Court recalled the order dated 10.04.2023, restoring the writ petition to its original number, as the goods had not been released and the State counsel sought time for further instructions, thus allowing RA-CW-260-2023. Regarding the main dispute, the Court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 2 Lacs in cash and provide a bank guarantee for the remaining penalty amount out of the total Rs. 8,80,980/-. The goods are to be released provisionally to the petitioner within 10 days. The respondents are directed to accept the Rs. 2 Lacs cash deposit. The Court also granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the GST MOV-11 order dated 02.11.2022, Annexure P-4, if advised. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should condone the delay of 69 days in filing the review petition/application, as per CM-11721-CWP-2023. The petitioner argued for condonation based on reasons provided in the application. The respondents' stance on this specific issue is not recorded. 2. Whether the order dated 10.04.2023 should be recalled, as per RA-CW-260-2023, to allow for further instructions from the State. The State counsel sought time for further instructions, implying a need to revisit the matter. 3. What directions should be issued for the provisional release of goods pending further proceedings, considering the disputed amount of Rs. 8,80,980/- and the petitioner's offer to deposit Rs. 2 Lacs in cash and provide surety for the balance. The petitioner contended for provisional release upon partial deposit and surety. The respondents' specific arguments on this point are not detailed, but they are directed to accept the deposit and facilitate release.