Cubex Tubings Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax INV) D-002) & Ors.
GST
2018 (8) TMI 64 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – 2018 (15) G. S. T. L. 643 (Bom.)
BOMBAY HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 17-7-2018
Writ Petition No. 7390 of 2018
GST
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.
Mr. Dhopatkar i/b Santosh Vhatkar & Associates for the Petitioner.
P.C. :
1. The petitioner has approached this Court complaining that the consignment, which was loaded on a vehicle, was intercepted during the course of its transport from the petitioner's office and factory to the State of Gujarat. The petitioner claims that they are manufacturers of copper and copper alloy products. They are holding the necessary Central Excise registration till migration to Goods and Services Tax (GST). They are also admitting that the product is covered by Chapter Heading 74 and the petitioners are holding a GST identification, details of which are set out in their letter Exhibit-F page 3
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
r assurances to the ultimate user. The material be, therefore, released, otherwise the consignees export will be hampered and they will suffer huge losses. An alternate request is made that the vehicle can be detained, but at least the goods be released.
2. Mr. Dhopatkar appearing for the petitioners does not dispute that the power to detain and seize and release goods and conveyances in transit is conferred by section 129 of the Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017. That sub-section (1) of section 129 confers an overriding power and the authorities can proceed to detain or seize and equally after detention or seizure, release the goods.
However, there is a complete procedure, in the sense, the release can be directed provided the concerned person complies with clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of section 129. Thus, to the satisfaction of the officer detaining the seizing the goods, the goods can be released. It is common ground before us that the seizure has not been challenged.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the release of the goods. The conduct of the petitioner shows that it is not ready and willing to comply with these conditions, but desires that this Court should interfere and direct unconditional release of goods.
We are not inclined to agree with Mr. Dhopatkar given that there are disputed about questions of fact.
4 In the circumstances, the petitioner is aware of the consequences which would follow post such detention and seizure and if it still desires to approach the concerned official with a proper request and express its readiness and willingness to comply with all the conditions permissible in law, we have no doubt in our mind that the release would be granted.
5 In the teeth of an alternate, equally efficacious remedy, we do not think that we should interfere in this writ petition.
6 We do not wish to start a trend which was prevalent during the earlier regime. On most occasions, people would rush to this Court and invoke its extra ordinary, discretionary and equitable j
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =