Petitioner has challenged the jurisdiction of State Officers in seizing the consignment of goods. Contention of the petitioner is that the respondents have no jurisdiction to retain the goods/consignment and the truck after the appellate authority has passed order in favour of the petitioner.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017— Goods in Transit ---The petitioner sought directions to respondent to release the goods and vehicle, without demanding any security. The respondents seized a consignment of goods. The petitioner challenged the action of the respondents and this Court, after taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances, passed the order on 28-5-2019, wherein it was directed that petitioner may file appeal and the competent authority shall release the goods/vehicle on furnishing the bank guarantee by the petitioner. The petitioner preferred appeal and the appellate authority vide order dated 22-6-2019 directed release of goods and truck. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that despite this order, the respondent has not released goods and vehicle. The respondent’s counsel on being asked submitted that there was no stay on the order dated 22-6-2019.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court called upon the Assistant Commissioner (Mobile Squad), Rai Bareli to furnish an explanation as to under what jurisdiction or authority of law, the consignment of goods of the petitioner and the truck are not being released. In case by the next date of listing, the consignment is not released despite the fact that there is no stay of operation of order dated 22-6-2019, the said authority would show cause why costs be not imposed. Listed the matter on 19-7-2019.
Petitioner has challenged the jurisdiction of State Officers in seizing the consignment of goods. Contention of the petitioner is that the respondents have no jurisdiction to retain the goods/consignment and the truck after the appellate authority has passed order in favour of the petitioner.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017— Goods in Transit ---The petitioner sought directions to respondent to release the goods and vehicle, without demanding any security. The respondents seized a consignment of goods. The petitioner challenged the action of the respondents and this Court, after taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances, passed the order on 28-5-2019, wherein it was directed that petitioner may file appeal and the competent authority shall release the goods/vehicle on furnishing the bank guarantee by the petitioner. The petitioner preferred appeal and the appellate authority vide order dated 22-6-2019 directed release of goods and truck. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that despite this order, the respondent has not released goods and vehicle. The respondent’s counsel on being asked submitted that there was no stay on the order dated 22-6-2019.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court called upon the Assistant Commissioner (Mobile Squad), Rai Bareli to furnish an explanation as to under what jurisdiction or authority of law, the consignment of goods of the petitioner and the truck are not being released. In case by the next date of listing, the consignment is not released despite the fact that there is no stay of operation of order dated 22-6-2019, the said authority would show cause why costs be not imposed. Listed the matter on 19-7-2019.