Dated this the 30th day of March 2021 Heard both sides.

2. Under orders of this Court in W.P.(C) No.18098 of 2020, goods were released vide release order at Ext.P2 on furnishing bank guarantee by the petitioner. The adjudication proceedings continued and those were culminated in the order at Ext.P3 by which the 3rd respondent had directed the petitioner to pay the IGST tax amounting to ₹ 4,25,181/-. This order at Ext.P3 dated 05.03.2021 is reported to be received by the petitioner on 20.03.2021.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has time of three months’ for preferring an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act and he is intending to prefer the appeal along with stay petition. However, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondents are invoking the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner for release of the goods. He further submits that the respondents be restrained from encashing the bank guarantee till filing of the statutory appeal by the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Pleader opposed the writ petition by contending that there is determination of the amount under order at Ext.P3.

5. I have considered the submissions so advanced and perused the materials placed before me. In terms of Section 107 of the CGST Act read with Rule 108 of the Goods and Services Tax Rules, the petitioner has time of three months to challenge the order at Ext.P3 which is received by the petitioner on 20.03.2021. The petitioner is intending to file statutory appeal within the prescribed period of limitation.

6. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

If the petitioner files statutory appeal challenging the order at Ext.P3 within the prescribed period of limitation, then the respondents should not invoke bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner for a period of one week after filing of the statutory appeal. Learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent to communicate this judgment to the 4th respondent for compliance.