2018 Taxo.online 424
WP(C).No. 34278 of 2018 dated 23.10.2018
V.V. MOHAMMED RAFI
V.V. MOHAMMED RAFI
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Section 20 of IGST Act, 2017
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Justice
Partly in favour of assessee
Represented by: –
Petitioner: – Sri.C.A.Sadasivan, Smt.P.S.Sethulekshmy, Sri.C.A.Sadasivan, Sri.C.V.Sasi, Sri.Joy P.Jose, Sri.K.Jayamohanan Pillai & Sri.K.N.Krishnan Namboothiri
Respondent: – Dr. Thushara James
The petitioner is a registered dealer under the State Goods & Service Tax Act. Because of what is said to be an inadvertent mistake in the tax invoice the 3rd respondent suspected that there is evasion of tax. That apart, the vehicle number also was typed mistakenly in the e-way bill. The vehicle and the goods detained, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
- In the writ petition, the petitioner sought the following reliefs:
“(i) Call for the records of the case leading to Ext.P4 & P5 notices demanding tax and penalty issued u/s.129(1) and Sec.20 of CGST and IGST Act 2017 and quash the same by issue of appropriate writ order or direction.
(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P5 penalty notice which has violated provision Sec.129(1)(b) of the SGST Act 2017.
(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order in the nature of writ directing the 3rd respondent to release the detained goods and vehicle, without collecting any tax or penalty since the notices issued are in violation of the provisions of the relevant Acts to the petitioner.”
- The learned Division Bench of this Court in Renji Lal Damodaran Vs. State Tax Officer1 has dealt with an identical issue.
- Applying the ratio of that judgment, I direct the respondent authorities to release the petitioner’s goods and vehicle on his “furnishing Bank Guarantee for tax and penalty found due and a bond for the value of goods in the form as prescribed under Rule 140(1) of the CGST Rules”.
With the above direction I dispose of the writ petition.