JUDGMENT/ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a transporter of the goods and his vehicle along with goods has been confiscated. Learned counsel submits that he had filed an appeal which has been rejected. Against which although a second appeal lies, however, taking into consideration the present circumstances, the petitioner has approached this court for release of vehicle and against its auctioning.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the revenue department relies on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in “The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. M/s Kay Pan Fragrance Pvt. Ltd.” Civil Appeal No.8941/2019, on 22nd November, 2019 to submit that if the petitioner wants an interim custody of the vehicle, which has been confiscated, Rule 140 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 is applicable, which can be invoked.
Learned counsel has also relied on the order passed by this court in “Sakeel Father/o Shri Wali Mohammad Vs. State Tax Officer”, SB Civil Writ Petition No.13485/2018, on 4th July, 2018 wherein after taking into consideration the provisions of CGST Rules, 2017, this court held as under:
“9. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that it would be very difficult to get the amount recovered if the security bond is allowed to be accepted and the truck and goods can be released on submission of bank guarantee.
10. Taking into consideration the prayer made above, this Court finds that Rule 140 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 provides as under:-
“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 Service Tax (Compensation to State ) Act, 2017 (15 of 2017).
(2) In case the person to whom the goods were released provisionally fails to produce the goods at the appointed date and place indicated by the proper officer, the security shall be encashed and adjusted against the tax, interest and penalty and fine, if any, payable in respect of such goods.”
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the revenue authorities have no objection if the petitioner complies with the provision of Rule 140 of the CGST Rules and if the bank guarantee in terms of Rule 140 is submitted, the revenue department would release the vehicle.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not owner of the goods and therefore, he is not liable to submit the bank guarantee for the confiscated goods and at best it can only be required for the purpose of vehicle.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the vehicle has been confiscated only on account of goods, he is not even liable to submit the bank guarantee relating to the vehicle and it should be released forthwith as he has complied with the provisions and produced all the 14 different owners of the goods.
I have considered the submissions.
At the present stage, admittedly the petitioner claims himself to be only the owner of the vehicle as a transporter and has shown his disclaimer on the goods. In view thereof, the revenue department would be free to auction the goods in terms of the Rules. However, if the petitioner submits the bank guarantee in terms of Rule 140, relating to the valuation of the vehicle, the revenue department would, upon satisfaction, release the vehicle to the petitioner. As owners of the goods are not presently before this court, no order in this regard is required to be passed.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.