Faisudeen P.M vs. Assistant State Tax Officer
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR TUE AY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020/20TH SRAVANA, 1942 W.P(C).No.16357 OF 2020 PETITIONER: FAISLUDEEN P.M, AGED 52 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, P.S. CEMENTS, ARATTUPUZHA P.O., HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA – 690515. BY ADV. SRI.V.DEVANANDA NARASIMHAM RESPONDENTS: 1 ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, INTELLIGENCE SQUAD NO-II, STATE GOODS & SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, PATHANAMTHITTA AT THIRUVALLA – 689101. 2 STATE TAX OFFICER INTELLIGENCE SQUAD NO-II, STATE GOODS & SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695001, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT. 3 STATE OF KERALA, STATE GOODS & SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, SERETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT. 4 COMMISSIONER OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, GST POLICY WING, NEW DELHI – 110 001. BY SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL, GOVT. PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.16357/2020 :: 2 :: J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the detention notice issued to him (Ext.P5) under Section 129 of the GST Act. On a perusal of the detention notice, I find that the objection of the respondents was essentially that the consignment was not supported by the original invoice and there was variation detected in the goods transported from the description in the invoice. On a consideration of the reasons shown in Ext.P5, I am of the prima facie view that the detention cannot be said to be unjustified.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to clear the goods on furnishing of a bank guarantee to cover the amounts demanded in Ext.P5. Taking note of the said submission, I dispose the writ petition by
W.P.(C).No.16357/2020 :: 3 :: directing the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to clear the goods and the vehicle on furnishing a bank guarantee for the amount demanded in Ext.P5. Thereafter, the 1st respondent shall forward the files to the adjudicating authority for an adjudication of the dispute under Section 130 of the GST Act, which adjudication shall be completed only after hearing the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of the files being forwarded to the 2nd respondent. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment together with a copy of the writ petition before the 1st respondent for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE W.P.(C).No.16357/2020 :: 4 :: The judgment dated 11.08.2020 in W.P.© No.16357/2020 recalled as per order dated 25.02.2022 in RP 869/21 for the limited purpose of clarifying that the adjudication, pursuant to the detention proceedings initiated under Section 129, shall be completed in terms of Section 129 of the GST Act itself. Joint
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.