2018 Taxo.online 568
WP(C).No. 41535 of 2018 dated 21.12.2018
HUSKY INJENCTION MOLDING SYSTEMS
THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX
Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Justice
In favour of assessee
Represented by: –
Petitioner: – Sri.Rajesh Nair & Sri.Joseph Prabakar
Respondent: – Dr. Thushara James
The petitioner, an assessee under the GST Act in Tamil Nadu, sent goods across to the State. The Assistant State Tax Officer intercepted the goods and detained them. After the initial procedural formalities, the petitioner suffered an order under Section 129 of the GST Act. Aggrieved, it has filed this writ petition, for these reliefs:
“(i) Issue a writ of Certiorai, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, calling for the records leading to the issue of Exts.P13 and P14 notice and after scrutinizing the same, to strike down and quash them;
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, orders or directions directing the respondent to refrain from proceeding further under section 129 of the Act based on Exts.P13 and Ext.P14;
(iii) Declare that the respondents can accept the tax and penalty as demanded by them (subject to the right of the petitioner to challenge the same) from the petitioner only through the registered GST Portal of the petitioner.
(iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or directions, directing the respondent to release the goods to the petitioner as per the conditions as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.
2. This case, as the Government Pleader submits, is covered by a Division Bench’s judgment in Renji Lal Damodaran v. State Tax Officer1. But before I consider that aspect, I must note the peculiarity of this case. The petitioner-Company is a dealer with its registration in Tamil Nadu. When it wanted to comply with the statutory demand and get the goods released, the respondent authorities insisted that the petitioner should have a temporary registration, remit the amounts using that registration, and then get the goods released. The petitioner is disinclined to follow that procedure. It wants to remit the amounts using its own Tamil Nadu registration and have the goods released. For this alternative, the Government Pleader cites practical difficulties as an answer.
3. Then, the Government pleader took instructions from the authorities, and informed the Court that the petitioner’s representative can approach the authorities with a request to remit the amounts. They will generate the challan in the petitioner’s name using a temporary registration and hand it over to the petitioner’s representative. That person, then, can approach the Bank, remit the amount, and produce the proof before the authorities. Thereafter, the authorities will release the goods. The petitioner’s counsel agrees for this arrangement.
Recording the arrangement as suggested by the Government Pleader, and as agreed to by the petitioner’s counsel, I dispose of the writ petition.