Quality Granite And Tiles vs. The Assistant State Tax Officer
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 27TH BHADRA, 1942 WP(C).No.19294 OF 2020 PETITIONER: M/S.QUALITY GRANITE AND TILES SEETHANGOLI, KASARAGOD DIST. PIN-671321 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SHRI.MUHAMMED ASHRAF BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS:
THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, MOBILE SQUAD, MANJESHWAR STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT KASARAGOD- 671121 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SGST DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER DR THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.19294 of 2020 2 JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P4 detention order issued by the respondents. On a perusal of Ext.P4 detention notice, it is seen that although the petitioner had covered the transportation with an invoice as also an e-way bill, the physical inspection of the consignment revealed that there was an excess quantity of goods than what was mentioned in the e-way bill and the invoice. It is therefore that Ext.P4 detention order was issued.
The learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the correctness of the measurements done by the respondents and he submits that an objection has already been preferred before the respondents in connection with the said discrepancy noticed by the petitioner.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I find that since it is the finding of the respondents that there was an excess quantity carried in
WP(C).No.19294 of 2020 3 the vehicle, the detention under Section 129 cannot be said to be unjustified. I take note however of the objection preferred by the petitioner before the respondent and dispose the Writ Petition with the following directions: i. On the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for the amount demanded in Ext.P4 order, the respondent shall forthwith permit clearance of the goods and the vehicle by the petitioner.
ii. The respondent shall, thereafter, consider the objection preferred by the petitioner and pass orders under Section 129(3) after hearing the petitioner in the matter. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE mns/18.9.2020
WP(C).No.19294 of 2020 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 5.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE STATE TAX OFFICER, KASARGOD, ALONG WITH TYPEWRITTEN COPY. EXHIBIT P2OF THE INVOICE NO.004 DATED 9.9.2020 ISSUED BY M/S. VINAYAK MARBLES, BORAWAR. EXHIBIT P3OF THE E-WAY BILL NO.7911 4451 4204 DATED 9.9.2020 ALONG WITH TYPEWRITTEN COPY. EXHIBIT P4OF NOTICE DATED 14.9.2020 IN FORM GST MOV-1, MOV-2, MOV-4, MOV-6, MOV-7 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5OF THE REPLY DATED 15.9.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //// P.A TO JUDGE
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.