Nikit Mittal Vs State of Jharkhand

GST - Allegation is that the Proprietress did not transact any business and without any sale or purchase availed input tax credit on the basis of forged invoice to the tune of Rs.2,92,64,476.59/- in violation of Section 132 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - similar allegation is against the other petitioner that without any sale or purchase, availed input tax credit on the basis of forged invoice to the tune of Rs.1,06,282/- in violation of Section 132 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Petitioners further submit that the prosecution has been initiated against the petitioners with oblique and mala fide motive just to harass the petitioners and without initiating any proceeding under sections 73 and 74 of the Act - Petitioners rely on the following decisions M/s. Jayachandran Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. The Superintendent of GST and Central Excise & Others - 2019-TIOL-1021-HC-MAD-GST & Vimal Yashwantgiri Goswami Vs. State of Gujarat - 2019-TIOL-1746-HC-AHM-GST in support.

Held:

+ Bench is inclined to grant privileges of anticipatory bail to the petitioners - Accordingly, the petitioner of A.B.A. No.6521 of 2018 namely Smt. Renu Singh is directed to surrender in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro within four weeks and in the event of her arrest or surrendering, she will be enlarged on bail provisionally for a period of one month from the date of her surrender on showing proof of reversing input tax credit of Rs.50,00,000/- with the Goods and Service Tax Department and on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of like amount each and with the condition that she will co-operate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish her mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that she will not change her mobile number during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - In case the petitioner of A.B.A. No.6521 of 2018 files another proof of reversing input tax credit of Rs.50,00,000/- with the Goods and Service Tax Department within the period for which the provisional bail is granted, then the provisional bail shall be extended for further one month from the date of her deposit by the trial court - Accordingly, on showing proof of reversing input tax credit of Rs.50,00,000/- with the Goods and Service Tax Department, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner of A.B.A. No.6521 of 2018 namely Smt. Renu Singh shall be extended for a period of further one month and on the petitioner showing the last proof of reversing input tax credit of Rs.42,64,476.59 with the Goods and Service Tax Department thereby completing payment of the total amount of Rs.2,92,64,476.59 on or before six months of the date of her surrender, the provisional bail granted to the her shall be confirmed by the trial court till disposal of the case - it is made clear that in case of failure of the petitioner of A.B.A. No.6521 of 2018 namely Smt. Renu Singh to reverse any of the installments of input tax credit as mentioned above, the provisional bail granted to her shall stand cancelled: High Court [para 10]

+ So far as petitioner of A.B.A. No.4745 of 2018 namely Nikit Mittal is concerned, the petitioner of A.B.A. No.4745 of 2018 namely Nikit Mittal is directed to surrender in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro within one month from today and in the event of his arrest or surrendering, he will be enlarged on bail on showing proof of reversing input tax credit of Rs.1,06,282/- to the Goods and Service Tax Department after the date of this order and on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in connection with Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No.121 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No.663 of 2018 with the condition that he will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the investigating officer as and when noticed by him and furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure: High Court [para 11]

- Provisional bail granted: JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

Adinath Agro Processed Foods Pvt Ltd Vs Chief Commissioner Of Goods & Services Tax

GST - Petitioner submits that they could not avail of the Transitional Credit available to it in view of technical glitches in filing online TRANS-1 under the CGST Act; that the action of the respondents in not re-opening the GSTN portal and allowing petitioner to upload the TRAN-1 is challenged - Respondent submits that they would pass an appropriate order on the Petitioner's application dated 4th June, 2019, within a period of three weeks from today - since the aforesaid statement takes care of the petitioner's grievance, writ petition is disposed of: High Court [para 5, 6]

- Petition disposed of: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-2615-HC-P&H-GST

Akhil Krishan Maggu Vs Deputy Director

GST - Four exporters had availed huge amount of refund of IGST and they are allegedly dummy owners - DGGI on 15.08.2019 searched the Gurugram residence of Ramesh Wadhera-alleged owner of dummy export firms who happens to be neighbour of petitioners - on the request of Ramesh Wadhera, Petitioners Akhil Krishan Maggu (practising lawyer) and Sanjeev Maggu came to his residence and some commotion took place between petitioners and officials of DGGI - accordingly, at the behest off DGGI, Police registered a FIR u/s 186, 353 IPC against both the petitioners and arrested them on the same day, both of them were later released on 22.08.2019 - DGGI on 27.8.2019 again recorded statements of said dummy exporters and who allegedly disclosed the name of petitioners apart from the earlier names of Ramesh Wadhera and Mukesh Kumar as also being involved - DGGI searched the Gurugram residence of petitioners on 28.08.2019 who were not at home and after completing search took away younger brother of petitioner no.1 to their office and arrested him on 29.08.2019 - another FIR was lodged by DGGI on the ground of obstruction in performance of official duty - DGGI directed petitioners to appear before SIO and tender their statement in connection with exports made by the dummy export firms - Apprehending coercive action, petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition - petitioners appeared before respondent on 11th and 12th September 2019 and the DGGI handed over petitioner no. 2 to DRI who arrested him and is presently in judicial custody - petitioner no. 1 appeared before respondent DGGI on 7.10.2019 and tendered his statement but no further statements were recorded on 11.10.2019 and 16.10.2019 when he again appeared before DGGI - Petitioner contends that it is a case of vendetta and there is no evidence against petitioners to connect them with fraud, if any, committed by the alleged dummy firms; that the intention of the respondent is to tarnish their reputation.

Held: Counsel for respondents have submitted record of investigation in sealed cover and upon perusing the same, Bench does not find in recording statement of petitioners, Dhruv Maggu - brother of Petitioner no. 1, Ramesh Wadhera and Mukesh Kumar to ascertain disclosure made by all of them - except petitioner no. 1, all other named persons have been arrested so their statements are necessary to ascertain prima facie role of petitioners - statements of dummy exporters who had retracted their earlier statements, were again recorded on 27.08.2019, however, their earlier statements recorded on 13.05.2019 are not produced probably because of the fact that these statements do not indict/implicate present petitioners - It would be profitable to look at judicial pronouncements relating to the issue involved - provisions of CGST Act, 2017 qua arrest and prosecution are pari materia with provisions of Finance Act, 1994 (Service Tax) - while dealing with power of arrest prior to determination of tax liability, Delhi High Court in the case of Make My Trip [ 2016-TIOL-1957-HC-DEL-ST ] has thoroughly examined the scheme of the Act and concluded in paragraph 116 that without even an SCN being issued and without there being any determination of the amount of service tax arrears, the resort to the extreme coercive measure of arrest was impermissible in law and that this judgment has been upheld by the Supreme Court [ 2019-TIOL-65-SC-ST ] - similar is the stand taken in the cases of Jayachandran Alloys (P) Ltd. 2019-TIOL-1021-HC-MAD-GST , VIMAL YASHWANTGIRI GOSWAMI Vs STATE OF GUJARAT - 2019-TIOL-1746-HC-AHM-GST , CLEARTRIP PVT LTD MUMBAI & ORS Vs THE UNION OF INDIA - 2016-TIOL-863-HC-MUM- ST , C. PRADEEP Petitioner(s) = 2019-TIOL-339-SC-GST - It is the consistent opinion of courts that power of arrest should be resorted in exceptional circumstances and with full circumspection - maximum sentence prescribed under GST is 5 years and it is directly linked with quantum of evasion of tax - Prosecution of any persons is directly linked with determination of evasion of tax because if there is no evasion of tax, there cannot be a criminal liability - determination of tax liability does not fall within the realm of criminal courts whereas liability of tax and penalty is determined by adjudicating authority under GST Act which is subject to challenge before Tribunal and Courts - opinion expressed by Telangana High Court P.V. RAMANA REDDY Vs. UNION OF INDIA) = 2019-TIOL-873-HC-TELANGANA-GST cannot be made applicable to each and every case and cannot be treated as an authority to conclude that DGGI has power to arrest in every case during investigation and that too without determination of tax evaded as well as finding that accused has committed an offence described u/s 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Arrest deprives any person from his right of liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India - provisions of CGST Act are not subject to exclusion of Criminal Procedure Code, rather section 67(10) as well as Section 69(3) borrow provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - As per s.41(1)(b) as amended by Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 applicable w.e.f 01.11.2010, a person may be arrested if he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment which may be less than 7 years or may extend to 7 years if conditions specified therein are satisfied - As per s.41A of Cr.PC, a notice shall be issued to the person against whom complaint has been made or creditable information has been received or reasonable suspicion exists and he shall not be arrested if he complied with the notice - Taking cue from the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Make My Trip, followed by Madras High Court in Jayachandran Alloys (P) Ltd., law laid down by the Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre 2011(1) SCC 694 as well as keeping in mind section 69 and 132 of the CGST Act which empower proper officer to arrest a person who has committed any offence involving evasion of tax of more than Rs.5 crores and prescribed maximum sentence of 5 years which falls within the purview of s.41A of Cr.P.C, Bench is of the opinion that power of arrest should not be exercised at the whims and caprices of any officer or for the sake of recovery or terrorising any businessman or create an atmosphere of fear, whereas it should be exercised in exceptional circumstances during investigation which illustratively may be - (i) a person is involved in evasion of huge amount of tax and is having no permanent place of business, (ii) a person is not appearing inspite of repeated summons and is involved in huge amount of evasion of tax, (iii) a person is a habitual offender and he has been prosecuted or convicted on earlier occasion, (iv) a person is likely to flee from country, (v) a person is originator of fake invoices i.e. invoices without payment of tax, (vi) when direct documentary or otherwise concrete evidence is available on file/record of active involvement of a person in tax evasion: High Court [para 7 to 10]

GST - Arrest - Persons who are having established manufacturing units and paying good amount of direct or indirect taxes; persons against whom there is no documentary or otherwise concrete evidences to establish direct involvement in the evasion of huge amounts of tax, should not be arrested prior to determination of liability and imposition of penalty - Similarly, arrest of Chartered Accountant or Advocates who had filed returns or otherwise assisted in business but are not beneficiary or part of fraud merely on the basis of statement without any corroborative evidence linking the professional with alleged offence should be avoided - It is well known that if top brass of a running concern is arrested, there are all possibilities of closure of unit which results into unemployment and wastage of precious natural resources: High Court [para 10.1]

GST - Arrest - Petitioner No. 2 was interrogated on 11.9.2019 & 12.9.2019 by DGGI and thereafter handed over to DRI, who arrested him - There is nothing on record showing admission by Petitioner No. 2 and no further statement has been recorded in jail though he is in judicial custody since 13.9.2019 - Petitioner No. 1 has already put appearance on various occasions and there is nothing in file which indicates that Petitioner No. 1 was connected with alleged illegal refund sought by Exporters - Concededly, the Petitioner No. 1 is neither proprietor nor partner nor shareholder of any Exporter Concern/Firm/Company, who availed refund of IGST - There is no evidence of transfer of funds in the accounts of Petitioners or withdrawal of cash by any one of them: High Court [para 11]

GST - Arrest - Bench is of the view that it is case of some mis-understanding between Petitioners and officers of Respondent/DGGI who now want to implicate Petitioner and his family members - The investigation is going on for last couple of months and Respondents are unable to produce any evidence showing direct involvement of Petitioners - Intention of Respondents seems only to arrest Petitioner No. 1, one way or the other, which is evident from the fact that Petitioner No. 2 was handed over to DRI without concluding investigation at least qua petitioner no.2 and there is nothing contained in different affidavits of Respondent, filed before this Court, indicating that involvement of Petitioner No. 2 is apparent from his statements - The Petitioner No. 2 was handed over to DRI on 12.9.2019 and since 13.9.2019 he is in judicial custody, hence no direction is warranted qua him, however qua Petitioner No. 1 (Akhil Krishan Maggu), Bench deems it appropriate to direct Respondent not to take him in custody without prior approval of this court - Petitioner No. 1 shall appear before Respondent as and when summoned between 10 AM to 5 PM: High Court [para 12, 13]

- Petition is disposed of: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-2611-HC-DEL-GST

Nagina International Vs UoI

GST - Grievance of the Petitioner relates to his claim for refund of IGST/ITC to the tune of Rs. 1,33,95,749/- along with interest - Respondents are directed to examine the said claim of the Petitioner and if the same or any part whereof is found to be payable, to release the refund amount within four weeks positively - However, in case the Respondents decided to contest this petition, they should file their counter affidavit within six weeks – Matter to be listed on 04.05.2020: High Court [para 3, 4]

- Matter listed: DELHI HIGH COURT

Khima Ram Mali Vs State of Gujarat

GST - Petitioner has submitted that they are ready and willing to pay the amount of tax and penalty as computed by the respondents in the impugned order passed under section 130 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Held: By way of interim relief, the respondents are directed to forthwith release truck No.RJ-24-GA-2716 together with the goods contained therein, subject to the petitioners depositing an amount of Rs.1,06,352/- as computed by the respondents towards tax and penalty - Matter posted on 28.11.2019: High Court [para 4]

- Interim relief granted: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Raj Chamunda Roadlines Vs State of Gujarat

GST - Petitioner submitst that physical verification of the goods came to be carried and Form GST-MOV-04 came to be issued wherein no discrepancy was found in respect of the goods in question but despite the aforesaid position, respondents have proceeded u/s 130 of the Act by issuinng Form GST-MOV-10 on the ground that after checking the dealers record according to the GST system, the dealer appears to be involved in bogus billing practice or making false claim of ITC for the period of August, 2019 and September, 2019; that thereafter, on the same ground an order has been passed under section 130 of the CGST Act confiscating the goods and the vehicle in question; that in the absence of any discrepancy in the documents and the goods, it is not permissible for the respondents to confiscate either the vehicle or the goods.

Held: Issue notice, returnable on 18 November 2019: High Court [para 3]

- Notice issued: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Sanjaybhai Laxmanbhai Gogara Vs State of Gujarat

GST - Petitioner submitst that physical verification of the goods came to be carried and Form GST-MOV-04 came to be issued wherein no discrepancy was found in respect of the goods in question but despite the aforesaid position, respondents have proceeded u/s 130 of the Act by issuinng Form GST-MOV-10 on the ground that after checking the dealers record according to the GST system, the dealer appears to be involved in bogus billing practice or making false claim of ITC for the period of August, 2019 and September, 2019; that thereafter, on the same ground an order has been passed under section 130 of the CGST Act confiscating the goods and the vehicle in question; that in the absence of any discrepancy in the documents and the goods, it is not permissible for the respondents to confiscate either the vehicle or the goods.

Held: Issue notice, returnable on 18 November 2019: High Court [para 3]

- Notice issued: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Meena Anil Jain Vs State Of UP

GST - During a relevant period, a truck transporting some goods was intercepted and detained by the Revenue - It was alleged by the Revenue that the transaction was bogus as there was neither a genuine transport agency nor a genuine buyer mentioned in the documents accompanying the goods - The present writ was filed by the owner of the truck, who claimed to not be involved in the entire transaction - The petitioner also claimed waiver of the bar of alternate remedy as the Tribunal had yet not been constituted.

Held - The matter be listed along with Writ Tax No 942 of 2018 - The present writ is provisionally entertained on account of non-constitution of the Tribunal - Regarding the interim relief, the order confiscating the truck shall remain in abeyance, conditional upon the petitioner depositing an amount equal to the tax on the goods found loaded on the truck, within two weeks' time - The amount so deposited shall abide by the final orders passed in this petition: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Sakshi Motors Vs UoI

GST - The petitioner-company filed the present writ on account of its inability of GST TRAN-1 - The petitioner herein sought directions be imposed similar to those rendered in WP(C) No. 1738 of 2019.

Held - In the case referred to by the petitioner, the Board had issued a letter dated 13.11.2018 to all concerned clarifying that if non-submission of requisite declaration is not traceable due to any technical glitch, then re-opening of the portal for filing the requiste declaration or allowing manual declaration of requisite form may not be in consonance with the framework of the GST Act - Hence the court therein opined that if a provisions existed for electronic filing of returns and if because of certain technical glitches, uploading could not be done in time, the individual or firm could not be put in a disadvantageous position - Hence the court directed the authorities concerned to examine the petitioner's grievance and permit filing of returns electronically or manually so that the petitioner not be deprived of ITC which is otherwise due to the petitioner - Following such findings rendered in this judgment, the present petition is disposed of with directions to re-open the web portals enabling the petitioner to upload Form GST TRAN-1 electronically or allow the petitioner to file such return manually: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: GAUHATI HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-2594-HC-MAD-GST

VN Mehta And Company Vs Assistant Commissioner

GST - The present writ challenges the proceedings initiated against the petitioner directing recovery of certain amount from the account maintained by the petitioner - Such recovery was ordered on account of tax, cess, interest & penalty payable by the petitioner as it had failed to pay the same - The petitioner claimed that the proceedings had been initiated straightaway, without framing assessment or initiating proceedings to determine the tax, cess, interest or penalty as claimed - It was claimed that Section 79 of the CGST Act cannot be invoked to recover the sum if such sum is an arrear payable by the petitioner - It was also claimed that though a statement had been obtained from the petitioner to the effect that it had availed ITC on the strength of invoices issued by fake units, such statement had later been retracted.

Held - It is seen that except issuing proceedings u/s 79, no other proceedings were ever initiated against the petitioner determining its tax liability as was sought to be recovered - Section 79 of the Act contemplates that any amount payable by a person to the Govt under any of the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder is not paid, the proper officer could recover the amount by one or more modes - Hence, it is evident that the term amount payable by a person is to mean that such liability arises only after determining such amount in a manner known to law - In this case, the relevant authority relied on the so-called admission made by the petitioner in its statement - Considering relevant excerpts from the petitioner's statement, it is seen that some parts of the statement contradict each other - Besides, the statement was retracted as well - Hence such statement which purports to be an admission is not available to the Revenue - It is also for the Revenue to determine the tax liability by resorting to procedures as per law rather than issuing the proceedings straightaway u/s 79, based on such statement later retracted - Hence the proceedings initiated u/s 79 is unsustainable - Moreover, provisional attachment u/s 83 can be resorted to only if proceedings are pending u/s 62, 63, 64, 67, 73 & 74 - No proceedings are pending under any such provisions - Hence Section 83 is of no avail to the Revenue - Thus the proceedings are not maintainable and merit being set aside: HC

- Writ petition allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-2593-HC-AHM-GST

Sarveshwar Shyambihari Mittal Vs State of Gujarat

GST - Vehicle in question has been released by the respondents and the petitioner is not interested in taking custody of the goods; that the vehicle since released, petitioner does not press the petition - Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the respondents have no objection if the petition is disposed of as not pressed; that the goods are still lying in the custody of the respondents.

Held: Petition is disposed of as not pressed by clarifying that, it shall be open for the respondent authorities to take appropriate action in connection with the goods seized by them on 31.07.2019, since the owner of the goods has not come forward for release of the goods: High Court [para 4]

- Petition disposed of: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-2592-HC-AHM-GST

Vivan Steel Pvt Ltd Vs State of Gujarat

GST - Petitioner states that they are ready and willing to pay the amount of tax and penalty in terms of the impugned notice issued under section 130 of the CGST Act - respondents are, therefore, directed to forthwith release the Truck together with the goods contained therein upon the petitioner paying the tax and penalty as mentioned in the impugned notice issued under section 130 of the CGST Act – Matter posted for 28 th November 2019: High Court [para 2, 4]

- Matter posted: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2019-TIOL-2591-HC-RAJ-GST

JODHPUR TRUCK PVT LTD Vs UoI

GST - Petitioner has sought a direction to the respondents to accept its GST TRAN-1 form offline or by opening portal - Counsel for respondent submits that the assessee is permitted to furnish offline GST TRAN-1 form, only if he had made an attempt to submit it electronically before 27.12.2017; that that in absence of any evidence or proof of uploading GST TRAN-1 form, evincing that the failure was a result of technical glitch, the petitioner cannot be given any indulgence/relief.

Held: It is noteworthy that by way of the notification 48/2018-CT dated 10.9.2018 a new proviso sub-rule (1A) was introduced in rule 117 of CGST Rules, while the provision contained in sub-rule (1) remained unaltered - A careful reading of sub-rule (1A) shows that it is not an extension of time of furnishing return or GST TRAN-1; it is rather an enabling provision providing further opportunity to the registered person who could not submit the said declaration by the due date on account of technical difficulties on the common portal - A bare look at the above-quoted provisions leaves no room for ambiguity that an assessee can be permitted to furnish offline GST TRAN-1 form subject to fulfilling all the three conditions viz. (i) the assessee failed to upload his GST TRAN-1 form on account of technical glitches on the common portal; and (ii) such attempt was made during the currency of transitional period i.e., 27.12.2017 and (iii) the GST Council has made a recommendation for such extension, being satisfied about such failure - A perusal of the memo of petition shows that the petitioner has neither made any assertion about the date/point of time, when it made attempt to upload his GST TRAN-1 form, nor has it placed any documentary evidence to substantiate such position - The averments made in the writ petition, however indicate that the petitioner has made first such attempt on 23.8.2019; no such request to GST Council seems to have been made - in each of the cited cases, the respective High Courts have recorded a categorical finding, based on petitioners' assertion that a genuine effort was made by the petitioner for furnishing return and TRAN-1 form within the period prescribed under Rule 117 of the Rules of 2017 and that there was a technical flaw in the system for which the return & Form TRAN-1 could not be furnished/uploaded - such fact is conspicuous by its absence and has been specifically disputed by the respondents - judgments cited by the petitioner are, therefore, of little avail to him - present writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to submit offline GST TRAN-1 form, subject to furnishing a proof that he had tried to upload GST TRAN-1 form prior to 27.12.2017 and such attempt failed due to technical fault/glitch on the common portal - Needless to mention that petitioner will be required to submit a certificate/recommendation issued by GST Council in this regard - In case all the three requirements enumerated above are met/satisfied, the petitioner's offline GST TRAN-1 form shall be accepted, of course, if it is filed by 31.12.2019 or extended period (if any) - application stands disposed of: High Court [para 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18]

- Petition disposed of: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

GST - Appellant had filed a writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order in MOV-6 and 7 dated 11.10.2019 and for a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent (Assistant Commissioner State Tax Department, Mobile Squad, Dehradun) to release the vehicle and the goods of the appellant-writ petitioner forthwith - Single Judge noted that the appellant-writ petitioner's truck was carrying goods from Baddi, Himachal Pradesh to Dehradun; it was detained at Kulhal border in Vikasnagar of Dehradun district on the ground that the truck had reached the check post in Uttarakhand after expiry of the time stipulated in the E-way bill; the appellant-writ petitioner had received a show-cause notice under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act whereby they were asked to show-cause why tax and penalty may not be imposed upon them; the appellant-writ petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court against the show-cause notice, and the Writ Petition was premature; they should give a reply to the show-cause notice to the authorities concerned furnishing valid reasons as to why delay had been caused; and since the goods can be released under Section 129(1) of the 2017 Act on the petitioner furnishing a security equivalent to the amount payable, in case, the appellant-writ petitioner deposits the security, the same shall be considered in accordance with law - Single Judge, thereafter, observed that the said provisions also provide that, once the goods are seized, the ultimate penalty/interest can only be imposed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned; and, in case the authorities concerned ultimately decide to impose penalty/tax, reasons must be assigned - aggrieved with this order, the present appeal is filed.