Heard learned senior counsel Mr. B.N. Majumder for the petitioner and learned senior Government Advocate Mr. P.K. Dhar appearing on advance copy for the respondents for final disposal of the petition.

Petitioner is a transporter. Petitioner’s Bolero jeep carrying electronic goods was intercepted at Churaibari on 31.03.2021 by the State GST authorities. The vehicle and the goods have been detained on the ground that the validity of the e-way bill which the driver was carrying had expired. On such alleged breach the Superintendent of GST, respondent no.3 herein, insists on the petitioner depositing Central GST of ₹ 2,42,848/-, State GST of matching amount and also penalty which is computed at 100% of the tax payable. Thus, he is further demanding penalty under CGST @ ₹ 2,42,848/- and a similar amount under State GST Act. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to undergo the entire gamut of assessment and pay if any tax or penalty is ultimately found due and payable. However, at this stage to collect the full tax with 100% penalty for release of the vehicle and the goods will be very harsh. He, therefore, requested that on some reasonable conditions the Court may order release of the vehicle and the goods.

Learned Sr. G.A. Mr. P.K. Dhar submitted that the authority has passed appropriate orders and at this stage no interference is necessary.

Under sub-section (1) of Section 67 of the Tripura GST Act the authorities have the power to inspect any place of business or taxable person or the persons engaged in the business of transportation of goods or the owner or operator of a warehouse or a godown or any other place. Under sub-section (2) of Section 67 the Inspecting Officer may even seize the goods. Under sub-section (6) of Section 67 the goods so seized can be released on provisional basis upon execution of a bond and furnishing of a security in such manner and of such quantum, as may be prescribed or on payment of applicable tax, interest and penalty. We also notice that under sub-section (1) of Section 129 when it is found that any goods which are in transit in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the rules the conveyance as well as the goods would be liable to detention or seizure.

Sub-section (2) of Section 129, however, provides that the provisions of subsection (6) of Section 67 shall apply in detention and seizure of such goods and conveyance also.

It can thus be seen that the Superintendent has the power to detain or seize the goods as well as the conveyance, but also has the power to release such goods and conveyance provisionally on furnishing bond or such security or payment as found appropriate.

In the present case, let the authorities continue the proceedings for assessment. However, till the same is done, it would not be appropriate to continue the detention and seizure of the conveyance as well as the goods.

Looking to the nature of defect in the documents of the transporter alleged, the value of the goods detained, the possible tax and penalty demand which may arise, it is directed that the respondents shall release the vehicle and the goods upon the petitioner fulfilling following conditions:  

(i) shall furnish bond for payment of full amount of tax and the penalty computed by the Superintendent;

(ii) shall either under protest deposit 25% thereof with the Superintendent subject to adjustment on final assessment or furnish bank guarantee of the value of 25% of the principal tax and penalties;

(iii) It would be open for the Superintendent to pass order of assessment after hearing the petitioner for which the petitioner shall cooperate in which it would be open for the petitioner to take all legal contentions.

Petition disposed of accordingly.