Page 90 - GSTL_3rd September 2020_Vol 40_Part 1

24 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 40
Pradesh & Ors. v. M/s. Kay Pan Fragrance Pvt. Ltd.” Civil Appeal No. 8941/2019,
on 22nd November, 2019 [2019 (31) G.S.T.L. 385 (S.C.)] to submit that if the peti-

tioner wants an interim custody of the vehicle, which has been confiscated, Rule
140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 is applicable, which can be
invoked.
3. Learned Counsel has also relied on the order passed by this Court in
“Sakeel Father of Shri Wali Mohammad v. State Tax Officer”, SB Civil Writ Petition
No. 13485/2018, on 4th July, 2018 [2018 (19) G.S.T.L. 419 (Raj.)] wherein after tak-
ing into consideration the provisions of CGST Rules, 2017, this Court held as un-
der :
“9. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that it would be very
difficult to get the amount recovered if the security bond is allowed to be
accepted and the truck and goods can be released on submission of bank
guarantee.
10. Taking into consideration the prayer made above, this Court finds that
Rule 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 provides as un-
der :-
“140. (1) The seized goods may be released on a provisional basis
upon execution of a bond for the value of the goods in FORM GST
INS-04 and furnishing of a security in the form of a bank guarantee
equivalent to the amount of applicable tax, interest and penalty
payable.
Explanation. - For the purposes of the rules under the provisions of
this Chapter, the “applicable tax” shall include central tax and State
tax or central tax and the Union territory tax, as the case may be and
the cess, if any, payable under the Goods and Services Tax (Com-
pensation to State ) Act, 2017 (15 of 2017).
(2) In case the person to whom the goods were released provi-
sionally fails to produce the goods at the appointed date and place
indicated by the proper officer, the security shall be encashed and
adjusted against the tax, interest and penalty and fine, if any, paya-
ble in respect of such goods.”
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the revenue au-
thorities have no objection if the petitioner complies with the provision of Rule
140 of the CGST Rules and if the bank guarantee in terms of Rule 140 is submit-
ted, the revenue department would release the vehicle.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not
owner of the goods and therefore, he is not liable to submit the bank guarantee
for the confiscated goods and at best it can only be required for the purpose of
vehicle.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the ve-
hicle has been confiscated only on account of goods, he is not even liable to sub-
mit the bank guarantee relating to the vehicle and it should be released forthwith
as he has complied with the provisions and produced all the 14 different owners
of the goods.
7. I have considered the submissions.
8. At the present stage, admittedly the petitioner claims himself to be
only the owner of the vehicle as a transporter and has shown his disclaimer on
the goods. In view thereof, the revenue department would be free to auction the
goods in terms of the Rules. However, if the petitioner submits the bank guaran-

GST LAW TIMES  3rd September 2020  106