Relcon Foundations (P) LTD 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 WEDNE AY, THE 06TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1941 WP(C).No.29794 OF 2019(Y) PETITIONER/S: RELCON FOUNDATIONS (P) LTD 50/309, MANIMALA ROAD, EDAPPALLY KOCHI, KERALA - 682024 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR T.K.ALEXANDER VAIDIAN BY ADV. SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER SQUAD NO.II, KERALA GST DEPARTMENT KASARAGOD -671315 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE STATE TAX OFFICER, WORKS CONTRACT STATE, GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT CLAS TOWER, KARGIL LANE, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD ERNAKULAM - 682018 3 THE COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT TAX TOWER, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695002 GOVERNMENT PLEADER DR.THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.29794 OF 2019(Y) 2 JUDGMENT Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P1 notice of detention and Ext.P4 notice proposing confiscation of the goods belonging to the petitioner that were detained while in transit. A perusal of Ext.P1 detention notice would indicate that the detention of the vehicle carrying the goods was on the ground that the GSTR 3B returns had not been filed from June 2018 and GSTR I had not been filed from February 2019. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said grounds cannot be justified for detention of the vehicle under Section 129 of the KGST Act.
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 force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reasons stated in Ext.P1 detention notice cannot be a justification for detaining the goods in terms of Section 129 of the KGST Act. Similarly, the said ground cannot form the basis of Ext.P4 notice proposing confiscation of the goods detained inasmuch as the ingredients of the offence covered by Section 130 are not satisfied in the instant case. I, therefore, dispose the writ petition by quashing Exts.P1 and P4 notices and directing the 1st respondent to forthwith release the goods and the vehicle to the petitioner on the petitioner producing a copy of the judgment before the said respondent. I make it clear that nothing in this judgment will prevent the respondents from initiating any penal action against the goods, if warranted, by following the procedure under the GST Act. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE WP(C).No.29794 OF 2019(Y) 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ORDER FOR PHYSICAL VERIFICATION IN GSTMOV- 02 ISSUED ON 29.10.2019 EXT.P2 COPY OF THE E-WAY BILL GENERATED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 25.10.2019 VALID UP TILL 05.11.2019 EXT.P3 COPY OF THE DELIVERY CHALLAN DATED 25.10.2019 EXT.P4 COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR CONFISCATION OF GOODS FOR CONVEYANCE IN FORM GST MOV-10 DATED 30.10.2019 WITH PROPOSED CALCULATION OF TAX AND PENALTY
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.