The goods lying with the respondent shall be released subject to submitting a surety bond of the equivalent amount of the value of the goods by the petitioner.
Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Provisional Release of Goods – The respondent sought vacation/modification of the interim order dated 21/5/2021. The coordinate bench of this Court on 21/5/2021 held that the goods lying with the respondent/s shall be released subject to submitting a surety bond of the equivalent amount of the value of the goods by the petitioner. The petitioner shall not be insisted for submitting the Bank guarantee. The counsel for the respondents submitted that the directions of the Court for not insisting for submitting the Bank guarantee is contrary to the provisions of Section 67(6) of the Act read with Rule 140. The court observed that the petitioner himself applied under Section 67(6) of the Act seeking release of the seized goods based on which the order dated 11/5/2021 was issued.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the application filed by the respondents. The order dated 21/5/2021 is modified to the extent that besides the surety bond of the equivalent amount of value of goods by the petitioner, it would be required of the petitioner to furnish security in the form of bank guarantee in terms of Section 67 (6) of the Act and Rule 140 of the Rules for release of the seized goods.
The goods lying with the respondent shall be released subject to submitting a surety bond of the equivalent amount of the value of the goods by the petitioner.
Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Provisional Release of Goods – The respondent sought vacation/modification of the interim order dated 21/5/2021. The coordinate bench of this Court on 21/5/2021 held that the goods lying with the respondent/s shall be released subject to submitting a surety bond of the equivalent amount of the value of the goods by the petitioner. The petitioner shall not be insisted for submitting the Bank guarantee. The counsel for the respondents submitted that the directions of the Court for not insisting for submitting the Bank guarantee is contrary to the provisions of Section 67(6) of the Act read with Rule 140. The court observed that the petitioner himself applied under Section 67(6) of the Act seeking release of the seized goods based on which the order dated 11/5/2021 was issued.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the application filed by the respondents. The order dated 21/5/2021 is modified to the extent that besides the surety bond of the equivalent amount of value of goods by the petitioner, it would be required of the petitioner to furnish security in the form of bank guarantee in terms of Section 67 (6) of the Act and Rule 140 of the Rules for release of the seized goods.