M/S A K Overseas vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Held
The Court held that the petitioner could seek provisional release of the seized goods and vehicle under Rule 140 of the Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017. The Court directed the petitioner to file an application before respondent no. 3 (the proper officer) within three weeks, indicating readiness to comply with the requirements of Rule 140. Respondent no. 3 was then directed to pass appropriate orders on this application within a further period of one week. If the petitioner fulfilled the requirements of Rule 140, including its explanation, respondent no. 3 was to release the vehicle along with the goods. The reasoning was based on the express provision in Rule 140 allowing for provisional release and the respondents' no-objection subject to compliance.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s A K Overseas, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court challenging the seizure of its goods and vehicle. The petitioner argued that under Rule 140 of the Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017, seized goods can be released provisionally upon execution of a bond for their value. The petitioner expressed readiness to comply with this rule. The respondents, represented by the State and other authorities, stated they had no objection to the release of goods if the petitioner complied with the mandatory requirements of Rule 140. The court considered the provisions of Rule 140 and its explanation.
Key Issues
1. Whether the seized goods and vehicle are liable to be released provisionally under Rule 140 of the Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017, upon the petitioner furnishing a bond and security. The petitioner contended that Rule 140 empowers the proper officer to release seized goods provisionally upon execution of a bond for the value of the goods and furnishing of security. The petitioner stated its willingness to comply with this provision. The respondents, through their counsel, submitted that they have no objection to the release of the goods if the petitioner complies with the mandatory requirements of Rule 140, including its explanation. The court had to decide on the applicability and compliance of Rule 140 for the release of the seized goods and vehicle.
Sections Cited
Rule 140
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 3 of 2020 Petitioner :- M/S A K Overseas Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Naveen Chandra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 as well as Sri C. B. Tripathi, Advocate appearing as Special Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is a provision under Rule 140 of the Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017 empowering the proper officer, which in the present case, is respondent no. 3 to release the seized goods on provisional basis upon execution of a bond for the value of the goods under Form G. S. T. He has next submitted that the petitioner is ready to comply with the requirement of Rule 140 together with its explanation and the seized goods along with vehicle be released.
Sri C. B. Tripathi, learned Special Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that in case the petitioner complies with the mandatory requirement of Rule 140 of the Central Goods and S
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.