2017 Taxo.online 13

WP(C)No. 28277 of 2017 (H) dated 31.08.2017





Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017


A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, Justice

In favour of assessee

High Court


Goods detained for absence of essential details in document accompanied – Release of goods and vehicle – Petitioner aggrieved of the security deposit demanded in the detention notice for release of the goods and vehicle – Respondent objected that transportation of the goods not accompanied by valid documents prescribed under SGST Act and documents accompanying the goods do not contain the essential details – Petitioner replied that there is no documents prescribed in SGST act yet therefore, goods were accompanied by delivery note as per KVAT Act – Held: – Detention justified – Accordingly, respondent directed to release goods and vehicle subject to petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee to cover the amount mentioned in notice, as well as to forward the files to the adjudicating authority for a decision, on merits, on the penalty, if any, to be imposed on the petitioner – Petition disposed off.

Represented by: – 

Petitioner: – Adv. Sri. S. Anil Kumar 

Respondent: – Sri. Shamsudheen V. K 

Order: – 

A consignment of GI Squares, that was being transported at the instance of the petitioner, was detained by the respondents. Ext.P3 is the detention notice issued to the petitioner. In the writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the insistence of the respondent that the petitioner must pay the security deposit demanded in the detention notice as a condition for release of the goods and vehicle.  

  1. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 
  2. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions: 

(i) On a perusal of Ext.P3 notice, it is seen that the objection of the respondent is essentially that the goods were being transported under cover of documents which were not the documents prescribed under the SGST Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the goods were transported under cover of a delivery note, which was prescribed under the KVAT Act, and this was necessitated since there was no prescribed format of the document that had to accompany the goods under the SGST Act. The learned Government Pleader would submit, on instructions, that the document that accompanied the goods did not contain the essential details prescribed under the SGST Act and Rules, for the purposes of transportation, and therefore, the documents used by the petitioner would not suffice to cover the transportation of the goods. Taking note of the said submission of the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, and finding that the detention cannot be said to be un-justified, I direct the respondent to release the goods and the vehicle covered by Ext.P3 detention notice, to the petitioner, on his furnishing a bank guarantee to cover the security deposit amount demanded in the Ext.P3 notice, before the respondent. 

(ii) The respondent shall thereafter transmit the files to the adjudicating authority who shall adjudicate the matter and pass orders, after hearing the petitioner, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, untrammelled by the observations in this judgment.  

(iii) The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment and a copy of the writ petition before the respondent. 

Free Trial

Are you looking for the Latest Rules, Notifications, and Case Laws?

Book your 7 days free trial

Book Now