Page 168 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

70 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
7. To prevent haemorrhaging of trade and commerce by prolonged of
detention seized goods caused by inordinately long periods of litigation, the pro-
ceedings triggered by issuance of notice under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act,
2017 stand concluded under Section 129(5) of the UPGST Act, 2017 after noticee
has deposited the amount or furnished the security required of him. This allows
the seized goods to be released expeditiously and the proceedings in regard
thereof to arrive at a litigative terminus in a short time-frame.
8. The facts of the case will now be construed in the light of the above
said provisions of the Act. The facts themselves lie in a narrow compass.
9. It is admitted by the State Revenue that the petitioner had furnished
a security in the form of a bank guarantee, equivalent to the amount payable un-
der clause (a) of Section 129(1) of the UPGST Act, 2017, upon demand made by
the Revenue to furnish such security of like amount. The security in the form of a
bank guarantee so furnished upon demand to the satisfaction of the State Reve-
nue Authorities is clearly relatable to Section 129(1)(c) of the UPGST Act, 2017.
10. The order dated 4th December, 2019 issued by the Assistant Com-
missioner (Incharge) Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad Mughalsarai Unit, Chan-
dauli directs the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee of the amount mentioned
in the order, in compliance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The operative portion of the said order passed by the authorities reads as under :
“ekñ mPpre U;k;ky; ds mä lanfHkZr fu.kZ; ds vuqikyu gsrq vkidks lwfpr
djrs gq, funsZf’kr fd;k tkrk gS fd mijksä fofufnZ"V dj ,oa vFkZnaM dh tek
pkyku vFkok cSad xkjaVh izR;sd n’kk esa v/kksgLrk{kjh ds lePN fnukad 11-12-
2019 rd izLrqr djuk lqfuf’pr djs vU;Fkk ekñ mPpre U;k;ky; ds vkns’k ds
vuqikyu esa vkids fo#) vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 130 ds varxZr vuqorhZ dk;Zokgh
izkjEHk dh tk,xhA”
11. It is beyond dispute that the petitioner had furnished the security in
the form of a bank guarantee of the amount and in the manner required of him
by the State Revenue Authorities, under Section 129(1)(a) read with Section
129(1)(c) of the UPGST Act, 2017, even prior to the order dated 4-12-2019. The
security in the shape of bank guarantee remains deposited with the State Reve-
nue. The seized vehicle and goods have been released on the strength of such
security deposit. Hence, the proceedings taken out under Section 129 of the
UPGST Act, 2017 are liable to be concluded in view of Section 129(5) of the
UPGST Act, 2017.
12. Clearly the notice under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act, 2017, dat-
ed 4th December, 2019 is infructuous and the proceedings taken thereunder are
liable to be treated as concluded.
13. In the light the preceding discussion, the writ petition is being dis-
posed of with the following directions :
14. The Revenue Authorities are directed to adjudicate the case on mer-
its, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order.
15. The bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner-assessee to the State
Revenue Authorities shall remain with the State Revenue Authorities and its in-
vocation shall be subject to the result of the adjudication.
16. The writ petition is finally disposed of accordingly.
_______

GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  232