2019 Taxo.online 360
W.P. (C) no. 16322 of 2019
M/s. Ceat Ltd.
Assistant State Tax Officer
Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017
CGST Rules 2017
In favour of assessee
PETITIONER:- ADV. SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL
RESPONDENT:- SMT. M.M. JASMIN
The petitioner prays for the following reliefs:
- “to call the records from 1st respondent leading to issuance of Ext.P6 notice and to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Exhibit P6 notice issued by 1st respondent U/s.129 of the Kerala GST Act 2017;
- to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order, directing 2nd respondent to conduct proper adjudication after considering the clerical mistake in Ext P4 and P4(a) e-way bills available at the time of interception;
- to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order, directing 1st respondent to release the goods on accepting bank guarantee and security for immediate release of goods along with transport vehicle; and
- to pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem justified in the facts and circumstances of the case”
2. The prayers though challenge the legality of Exts.P6 proceedings under Section 129 of the Kerala GST Act 2017, the learned Counsel for the petitioner for the present does not press those contentions. However, seeks liberty to secure release of subject goods on condition that the petitioner furnishes Bank Guarantee for the amount determined by the respondents in this behalf. The issue is substantially pending before the respondents. This Court is not persuaded to entertain the writ petition at this stage. However, keeping in view the submission made by Mr.Thomson T. Emmanuel, the writ petition is disposed of by this order:
3. The respondents release the goods detained as per proceedings in Exts.P5 and P6 subject to the petitioner furnishing Bank Guarantee for the amount determined by the respondents in this behalf and also that the Bank Guarantee is kept alive during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 129. The proceedings are disposed of as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is needless to observe that while adjudicating the matter under section 129 the e-way bills produced by the petitioner, now shown as Exts.P4 and P4(a), are also considered by the second respondent and appropriate orders are passed.