M/S. Armour Steel Buildings INDIA PVT LTD vs. The Assistant State Tax Officer - Kerala High Court, 30 October 2018

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU TUESDAY ,THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1940 WP(C).No. 35214 of 2018 PETITIONER/S: M/S. ARMOUR STEEL BUILDINGS INDIA PVT LTD 76, CII FLOOR, ANSARI STREET, RAMNAGAR, COIMBATORE 641009, TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, G.LAWRANCE. BY ADVS. SMT.S.K.DEVI SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER (INTELLIGENCY OFFICE), SURVEILLANCE SQUAD NO.I, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, KERALA POOTHOLE, THRISSUR- 680 004. 2 THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR SQUAD NO.I, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, KERALA, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 004 OTHER PRESENT: GP DR. THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.35214/2018 -2-

J U D G M E N T The petitioner, an assessee under the GST Act in Tamil Nadu, sent goods across to the State. The Assistant State Tax Officer intercepted the goods and detained them. After the initial procedural formalities the petitioner suffered an order under Section 129 of the GST Act. Aggrieved, it has filed this writ petition, for the following reliefs: “(i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to remit the amounts demanded in Ext.P6 order to release the goods detained under Ext.P5 order. (ii) to grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case.”

This case, as the Government Pleader submits, is covered by a Division Bench's judgment in Renji Lal Damodaran v. State Tax Officer1. But before I consider that aspect, I must note the peculiarity of this case. The petitioner-Company is a dealer with its registration in Tamil Nadu. When it wanted to comply with the 1 Judgment dated 06.08.2018 in W.A. No.1640 of 2018 -3- statutory demand and get the goods released, the respondent authorities insisted that the petitioner should have a temporary registration, remit the amounts using that registration, and get the goods released. The petitioner is disinclined to follow that procedure. In the alternative, the authorities wanted the driver of the vehicle to remit the amounts in his name and have the goods released. For this alternative, the petitioner's counsel cites practical difficulties as an answer.

Then, the Government pleader took instructions from the authorities, and informed the Court that the petitioner's representative can approach the authorities with a request to remit the amounts. They will generate the challan in the petitioner's name and hand it over to the petitioner's representative. That person, then, can approach the Bank, remit the amount, and produce the proof before the authorities. Thereafter, the authorities will release the goods. The petitioner's counsel agrees for this arrangement.

-4- Recording the arrangement as suggested by the Government Pleader, and as agreed to by the petitioner's counsel, I dispose of the writ petition. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE jjj APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 2-8-2018 EXHIBIT P2OF THE INVOICE NO.0421 DATED 19/10/2018 EXHIBIT P3OF E-WAY BILL NO.571062035896 DATED 19- 10-2018 EXHIBIT P4OF FORM, GST MOV-OZ ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5OF THE FORM GST MOV-06 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6OF THE ORDER NO.VCI/GST/81-2018-19 DATED 25-10-2018 -5- EXHIBIT P7OF FORK GST -PMT-06 PAYMENT CHALAN ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8OF HE REQUEST DATED 20-10-2018 EXHIBIT P9OF THE REQUEST DATED 26-10-2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER