Page 164 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

66 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
towards the penalty in the form of Bank Guarantee and on compliance of
the said department is required to release the goods and vehicles. Whereas,
Section 129(6) of the Central/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, states
: Whether the person transporting any goods or the owner of the goods fails
to pay the amount of tax and penalty as provided in sub-section (1) within
fourteen days of such detentions or seizure, further proceedings shall be in-
itiated in accordance with the provisions of Section 130. Accordingly, in
view of the Section 129(6) of the CGST Act, 2017, M/s. ABB India Limited
had to comply with the directions given in the instant case by the Hon’ble
High Court of Gujarat in their interim order, by 14-1-2014 (being fourteen
day of issuance of the order of detention in GST MOV-06, dated 31-12-
2019.) However, Shri Rajneesh B. Kulkarni, Authorized Signatory of M/s.
ABB India Limited come forward on 24-1-2020 and submitted a letter dated
24-1-2020 attached therewith a copy of GSTR3B as proof of payment of Tax
amounting to Rs. 50,40,972/- made on 20-1-2020 and furnished a Bank
Guarantee No. 0419620BG0000007, dated 22-1-2020 for the amount of Rs.
50,40,972/-. As such, for compliance of the interim order passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the instant case, the goods along with the
vehicles were released provisionally on 24-1-2020. M/s. ABB India Limited
had four days to comply with the directions given by the Hon’ble Court i.e.
upto 14-1-2020, as fourteen days from the date of issuance of the order of
detention in FORM GST MOV-06, dated 31-12-2019 was going to expire on
14-1-2020. However, neither the owner of the goods nor the person in
charge of the conveyance made the payment of applicable tax and penalty
within the time allowed in the order passed supra.”
8. It appears that the authority concerned thoroughly misconstrued our
order dated 10-1-2020. The whole basis of issuing Form GST-MOV-10 appears to
be erroneous in law. The authority has thought fit to proceed against the appli-
cant by way of Form GST-MOV-10, on the premise of Section 129(6) of the Act,
2017. Section 129(6) of the Act, 2017 reads thus :
“Where the person transporting any goods or the owner of the goods fails
to pay the amount of tax and penalty as provided in sub-section (1) within
seven days of such detention or seizure, further proceedings shall be initi-
ated in accordance with the provisions of Section 130 :
Provided that where the detained or seized goods are perishable or hazard-
ous in nature or are likely to depreciate in value with passage of time, the
said period of seven days may be reduced by the proper officer.”
9. The understanding of the authority is that since the notice under Sec-
tion 129(3) of the Act is dated 31st December, 2019, the applicant ought to have
deposited the amount, towards tax and penalty, within 14 days thereof, and the
failure, to deposit such amount, would entail the consequences of notice in Form
GST-MOV-10.
10. We may only say that there is no question of looking into Section
129(6) of the Act, more particularly, when this Court has passed a specific order
dated 10th January, 2020. We fail to understand on what basis the period of 14
days came to be calculated for the purpose of issuing GST-MOV-10.
11. Besides the above, we take notice of the fact that except Section
129(6) of the Act, there is no other ground for the purpose of issuing notice in
Form GST-MOV-10. If that be the case, then we have no hesitation in quashing
the Form GST-MOV-10 notice straightway.
12. In the result, this application succeeds and is hereby allowed. The

GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  228