2017 Taxo.online 24
WP(C).No. 29675 of 2017 (H) dated 18.09.2017
DHANASWAROOPDAS
ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER
2017
GST
Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017
A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, Justice
In favour of assessee
High Court
Kerala
Detention in absence of documents – Goods detained as not accompanied by Form KER-I during transportation – Obligation of transporter to file KER-II which was not enabled on website – Generation of Form KER-II not enabled on website – Form KER-I was filed online & Form KER-II submitted manually at check post – Held: – Referring to the judgement of this Court in W.A.No.1802 of 2017, Respondents directed to complete the adjudication process after considering the submissions made in connection with the detention within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment
Represented by: –
Petitioner: – Adv. Sri. Tomson T. Emmanuel
Respondent: – Sri. Shamsudheen. V. K. & Sreelal N. Warrier
Order: –
APPENDIX
—————
PETITIONER(S)’ EXHIBITS
———————————–
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX INVOICE NO. 27AC/17-18/016 DATED 24.8.2017 RAISED BY M/S.ATUL COMMODITIES PVT. LTD; MUMBAI, AFTER COLLECTING INTEGRATED GOODS AND SERVICE TAX
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF E-CONSIGNMENT GST KER 1 ONLINE DECLARATION NO. 32071565338/2017-18/2300667 DATED 29.8.2017
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO. OR/VI/1/17-18 DATED 29.8.2017 ISSUED U/S. 129(3) OF THE STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX ACT, 2017 DEMANDING CGST, SGST AND PENALTY, WHICH WAS ISSUED TO PETITIONER, SUBSEQUENT TO KER 1 ONLINE DECLARATION IS PRODUCED BY PETITIONER, BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN REPLY DATED 30.8.2017 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT, AGAINST EXT.P3 NOTICE
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 12.9.2017 SENT BY E-MAIL TO 4TH RESPONDENT FOR ISSUANCE OF PROPER DIRECTION TO 1ST RESPONDENT FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE OF GOODS DETAINED
EXHIBIT P5A TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 12.9.2017 SENT BY E-MAIL TO CHAIRMAN OF GST COUNCIL, NEW DELHI
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF NOTIFICATION NO. 15/17 – CENTRAL TAX DATED 1.7.2017 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT IN AMENDING CGST RULES
RESPONDENT(S)’ EXHIBITS NIL
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by a detention, of goods that were being transported at his instance, by the authorities under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST) and State Goods and Services Tax Act (SGST). In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that the detention as evidenced by Ext.P3 was on the ground that the consignment of goods that was being transported was not accompanied by the necessary declaration in Form KER I, which was mandated for supplies effected in the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he had entrusted the goods to a transporter and the transporter was obliged to file a declaration in Form KER II, and inasmuch the respondents had not enabled the generation of a KER II declaration in the website, it was impossible for the transporter to download the KER II declaration electronically and it was under those circumstances that the detention was necessitated. It is his case that the petitioner cannot be prejudiced on account of a lapse on the part of the respondents in maintaining the necessary infrastructure for enabling assessees/transporters to download the necessary forms electronically.
- I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, and taking note of the specific submission of the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, that the adjudication process in connection with the detention can be completed within a week from today, and taking note of the judgment dated 30.08.2017 of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1802 of 2017, I direct the 1st respondent to complete the adjudication process in connection with the detention evidenced by Ext.P3 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner and after taking note of Ext.P4 reply submitted by the petitioner. While adjudicating the matter, the 1st respondent shall also take note of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was on account of the non-availability of Form KER II in the website that the transporter was disabled from producing the same at the time of transportation of the goods. He shall also consider the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of detention, the KER II declaration in manual Form was submitted at the check post, and further, that he had also submitted the online declaration in Form KER I in the KVATIS Website. The challenge in the writ petition against the vires of the statutory rules is left open for consideration in an appropriate case.
