Ramesh Iron And Steel Company Private Limited vs. State Tax Officer
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUE AY, THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 15TH POUSHA, 1942 WP(C).No.29172 OF 2020(V) PETITIONER/S: RAMESH IRON AND STEEL COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, VI/366, VI/366D, VI/366, ELOOR-KALAMASSERY ROAD, KALAMASSERY, COCHIN-683 501, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR.M.K.MURALI. BY ADVS. SRI.A.KUMAR SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR SMTG.MINI(1748) SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD SHRI.JOB ABRAHAM RESPONDENT/S: STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, SQUAD NO.4, ERNAKULAM AT EDAPALLY. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER C K GOVINDAN SPL GP TAXES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.29172 OF 2020(V) 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 5th day of January 2021 Petitioner challenges Exts.P5, P6 and P8. Ext.P8 is an order issued by the respondent under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (For short, the Act). Petitioner contends that his vehicle was detained under Section 129(1) on the ground that there was a violation of Rule 138 of the GST Rules, since the E-Way bill issue had expired few hours before the vehicle was detained.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. A Kumar, further contends, that the appellate remedy available under the statute is of no consequence in the instant case in view of the peculiar facts arising. He seeks indulgence of this Court to interfere in exercise of the extra ordinary juri iction under Article 226. The learned counsel refers to other writ petitions
WP(C).No.29172 OF 2020(V) 3 pending consideration before this Court, wherein, similar contentions are raised and which have been already heard by this Court and decisions awaited. Coming to the facts of this case, it was contended that, the respondent while passing Ext.P8, had not taken into reckoning the objections filed by the petitioner and instead, acted mechanically, without even any reference in Annexure-III of Ext.P8, about the various contentions raised by him. According to the learned counsel, the order impugned is not a reasoned one and the same renders the order without any basis and in excess of juri iction.
I have heard the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.C.K Govindan also, who points out Section 107 of the Act as the remedy available to the petitioner.
Ext.P8 is an order passed under Section 129 (3) of the Act.. It is appealable under Section 107 of the Act. Even though this Court can, in exceptional circumstances interfere
WP(C).No.29172 OF 2020(V) 4 with detention orders, this is not a fit case where this Court should interfere, in exercise of its extraordinary juri iction. It has been held that Section 129 is a complete code in itself. When the procedure required under the said provision has been apparently followed, an interference under Article 226 is not warranted. The legislative scheme discernible from Section 129 of the Act contemplates compliance of natural justice. Since after detention, Ext.P6 notice was issued and an order was passed after giving an opportunity of being heard, this Court is prima facie of the view that this is not a fit case to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, it is ideal to relegate the petitioner to the appellate remedy available under Section 107 of the Act.
However, since the goods have been detained and has been lying under detention, the same can be released if the petitioner furnishes a bank guarantee, for the amount demanded in Ext.P8 within one week from today. If the
WP(C).No.29172 OF 2020(V) 5 petitioner furnishes a Bank Guarantee for the entire amount demand in Ext.P8 within seven days from today, the goods and vehicle detained under Ext.P8 order shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. If the petitioner fails to file an appeal within the period prescribed under the law, the Bank Guarantee can be encashed. On the other hand, if the petitioner files an appeal within the time prescribed, the Bank Guarantee shall not be encashed till disposal of the appeal. Needless to state, the appeal if any shall be filed in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE JS
WP(C).No.29172 OF 2020(V) 6 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE INOVICE DATED 25.11.2020. EXHIBIT P2OF THE E-WAY BILL DATED 11/2020. EXHIBIT P3OF FORM GST MOV-02 DATED 02.12.2020. EXHIBIT P4OF FORM GST MOV-04 DATED 02.12.2020. EXHIBIT P5OF FORM GST MOV-06 DATED 02.12.2020. EXHIBIT P6OF FORM GST MOV-07 DATED 02.12.2020. EXHIBIT P7OF THE REPLY DATED 08.12.2020. EXHIBIT P8OF FORM GST MOV-09 DATED 15.12.2020. EXHIBIT P9OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 14.09.2018. EXHIBIT P10OF INTERIM ORDER IN WPC NO.27520 OF 2020 DATED 09.12.2020. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.