Case Law Details
State of Punjab & Ors. Vs Jagseer Singh (Supreme Court of India)
Supreme Court addressed appeals in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Jagseer Singh, concerning confiscated goods and vehicles under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The High Court had granted interim relief to the respondents by allowing the release of goods and vehicles upon depositing only 25% of the demanded amount and furnishing personal surety bonds for the balance. The State argued that such relief jeopardized revenue recovery as no proper bank guarantee was secured. The appellant-State highlighted the precedent in The Deputy Assistant Commissioner vs. M/s Matrix Traders to assert that such interim orders, passed without hearing the State’s perspective, could not serve as precedents.
The Supreme Court found merit in the State’s arguments, observing that the High Court had granted interim relief equivalent to the primary relief sought in the petitions, without assessing the merits or hearing the State adequately. The Court set aside the High Court’s orders and remanded the matters for reconsideration, emphasizing that any interim relief must align with legal provisions and ensure the State’s revenue interests are safeguarded. Pending applications were also disposed of, with the Court refraining from making observations on the merits of the case.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
Issue notice to the respondents in all the three cases.
Delay condoned.
Mr. Sanjeev Goyale, learned counsel accepts notice for the respondent(s).
Hence, formal service of notice is waived.
Leave granted.
Dr. Abhishek Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-State, drew our attention to the impugned orders in these cases and contended that the order passed by this Court in SLP (C) No.9918 of 2022 titled as, “The Deputy Assistant Commissioner & Anr. vs. M/s. Matrix Traders” disposed of on 22.07.2024, cannot be a precedent so as to pass interim orders ex parte, which are impugned in these cases.
It is submitted that one of the main prayers sought by the respondent(s) herein was for the release of the goods and the vehicles which have been confiscated. That by an interim order, the said goods and the vehicles, which have been confiscated, could not have been released by directing the respondent(s) herein to deposit only 25% of the demanded amount and subject to the result of the writ petitions. There cannot also be any personal surety bonds for the remaining amount, instead a bank guarantee must be insisted upon. As a result, in the present cases the interest of the revenue has been jeoparadised and prejudiced inasmuch as, if the respondent(s) are unsuccessful, there would be no way in which the value of the goods as well as the vehicles could be secured by the State. He therefore submitted that appropriate orders may be made in these Special Leave Petitions including staying of the impugned orders so as to not have a replication of such orders in future cases.
Per contra, Sri Sanjeev Goyale, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the impugned orders are in accordance with Rule 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and the High Court did not in any way digress from what has been stipulated in law and further the Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepted notice and it was in his presence that the impugned orders were made.
Therefore, there is no merit in these appeals.
We have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar in light of the impugned orders. What strikes us is the fact that one of the main prayers sought by the respondent(s) herein was the release of the confiscated goods as well as the vehicles. Incidentally, interim prayers also were sought in a similar fashion. But the High Court without considering the cases on merits as such, has granted the interim reliefs which are equivalent to grant of one of the main reliefs sought for by the respondent(s) herein.
The said reliefs have been granted virtually ex parte without having the benefit of the stand of the State in the matters. Consequently, if the goods were confiscated as well as the vehicles were released, in the absence of there being any proper bank guarantee or other security provided by the respondent(s), the revenues of the State would be at risk inasmuch as in the event the respondent(s) herein are unsuccessful before the High Court, the recoveries would be jeoparadised.
In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned orders and remand these matters to the High Court for consideration afresh the interim/final relief sought for by the respondent(s) herein. Since the goods as well as the vehicles have not yet been released as yet, as submitted by the learned senior counsel for the
appellant-State, in the event the respondent(s) press for an interim relief, on a reconsideration of the matters, appropriate directions could be issued in accordance with law.
The Civil Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. It is needless to observe that we have not made any observation on the merits of these matters.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Issue notice to the respondents in all the three cases.
Delay condoned.
Mr. Sanjeev Goyale, learned counsel accepts notice for the respondent(s).
Hence, formal service of notice is waived.
Leave granted.
The Civil Appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Author Bio
