GST: HC Should Be Loathe To Entertain Writ Petitions Questioning Seizure Of Goods: SC [Read Order]
"There is no reason why any other indulgence need be shown to the assessees, who happen to be the owners of the seized goods. They must take recourse to the mechanism already provided for in the Act and the Rules for release."
High Court should be loathe to entertain the Writ Petitions questioning the seizure of goods, the Supreme Court has observed.
The court made this observation while considering the appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against interim order passed by the Allahabad High Court directing it to release the seized goods under Central Goods and Service Tax, subject to deposit of security other than cash or bank guarantee or in the alternative, indemnity bond equal to the value of tax and penalty to the satisfaction of the Assessing Authority.
The bench of Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari noted that similar orders came to be passed in several other writ petitions by the High Court, and after passing such orders and its compliance by the state, the writ petitions gets dismissed as infructuous. The bench observed:
We find force in the submission canvassed by the State that a complete mechanism is predicated in the Act and the Rules for release and disposal of the seized goods and for which reason, the High Court ought to have been loathe to entertain the Writ Petitions questioning the seizure of goods and to issue directions for its release.
The Court observed that High Court in all such cases ought to have relegated the assessees before the appropriate Authority for complying with the procedure prescribed in Section 67 of the Act read with Rules as applicable for release (including provisional release) of seized goods. It said:
"There is no reason why any other indulgence need be shown to the assessees, who happen to be the owners of the seized goods. They must take recourse to the mechanism already provided for in the Act and the Rules for release, on a provisional basis, upon execution of a bond and furnishing of a security, in such manner and of such quantum (even upto the total value of goods involved), respectively, as may be prescribed or on payment of applicable taxes, interest and penalty payable, as the case may be, as predicated in Section 67 (6) of the Act. In the interim orders passed by the High Court which are subject matter of assail before this Court, the High Court has erroneously extricated the assessees concerned from paying the applicable tax amount in cash, which is contrary to the said provision."
While disposing the appeals, the bench further observed:
We reiterate that any order passed by the High Court which is contrary to the stated provisions need not be given effect to in respect of all the cases referred in the affidavit by the State Government before this Court and fresh cases which may have been filed or likely to be filed before the High Court in connection with the subject matter of these appeals, by all concerned and are deemed to have been set aside/modified in terms of this order. In view of this order, all the Writ Petitions pending before the High Court, list whereof has been furnished in the affidavit are deemed to have been disposed of accordingly. We have passed this common order to cover all cases of seizure during the relevant period, to obviate inconsistency in application of Law and also to do away with multiple appeals required to be filed by the State/ assessee to assail the unstatable orders/directions passed by the High Court in subject writ petition(s) referred to in the affidavit filed by the State before this Court.