2019 Taxo.online 389
W.P. (C) no. 17527 of 2019
M/s. Calicut Ceramics
Assistant State Tax Officer
2019
GST
Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017
129
CGST Rules 2017
140
S.V.BHATTI
In favour of assessee
High Court
Kerala
REPRESENTED BY: –
PETITIONER: – SMT.M.K.HAJARA AND SRI.C.RAMACHANDRAN
RESPONDENT: – DR. THUSHARA JAMES
ORDER: –
The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 series notices issued by the 1st respondent as illegal and without jurisdiction. Ext.P4(c) is an order of detention made under Section 129 (1) of CGST Act, 2017 and Ext.P4 (d) is a notice issued under Section 129 (3) of the Act. The petitioner contends that the subject matter of Exts.P4(c) and P4(d) is fully compliant with all the requirements of the Act and the petitioner was in a position to demonstrate within the time given by the authorities that Part B/E-Way Bill was also generated and produced for inspection. Therefore, the proceedings now initiated through Exts.P4(c) and P4(d) are not warranted and illegal.
- The learned Government Pleader objects to the maintainability of the writ petition. Firstly, she contends that from the very admission made by the petitioner there is an omission or illegality in transportation of The omission is that admittedly at the time of inspection or detention of goods the transporter could not produce all the documents required for establishing that the goods is under valid transit. The detention order cannot and could not be treated as final, for according to her section 129 deals with and provides for not only detention but also for release of goods, subject to the petitioner complying with the mandate of Section 129 of the Act. According to her, the petitioner if insists for the release of goods, the petitioner can furnish the bank guarantee for the tax and penalty amount demanded through Ext.P4(d) and the authority does not have difficulty in releasing the detained goods forthwith.
- By way of reply, Smt. K. Hajara submits that the petitioner since is confident that the transit of goods was strictly in accordance with the requirements of the law, the detention of goods is not warranted, the petitioner has no difficulty in furnishing the bank guarantee, but he states that the authority will not pass final orders in this behalf, resulting in the petitioner continuously keeping the bank guarantee alive. He further submits that the bank guarantee is also provided at substantial commission by the banker and for no reason the petitioner loses in the bargain.
- I have considered the rival submissions and perused the The writ petition is disposed of by this order.
- The issues raised are at preliminary stage and this Court is not convinced to entertain the writ petition and adjudicate upon merits at this stage. To confirm to the scheme under the Act, the writ petition is disposed of by this order. The petitioner submits bank guarantee for the tax and penalty as shown in Ext.P4(d) and applies for release of goods by enclosing a copy of this order within two days from today. The 1st respondent shall release the goods detained under Ext.P4(c) and subjected to enquiry in Ext.P4(d) within twelve hours from the date and time of receipt of bank guarantee. The bank guarantee shall be kept valid for one month from today. The 1st respondent shall complete the enquiry, afford fair and reasonable opportunity as envisaged under the Act to petitioner and pass and communicate his order within four weeks from today. The 1st respondent, if fails to pass the order as directed by this Court the petitioner is not under obligation to keep the bank guarantee alive beyond one month.
