M/s. Bhima Enterprises Versus The Assistant State Tax Officer, Neyyattinkara, The Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, State Goods And Service Tax Department, Thiruvananthapuram And The Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes, State Goods And Service Tax Department, Thiruvananthapuram – 2018 (1) TMI 1149 – KERALA HIGH COURT – [2018] 1 GSTL 54 (Ker), 2018 (19) G. S. T. L. 394 (Ker.) – Detention of goods – inter-state sale – goods not accompanied by valid documents as prescribed under the State Goods and Service Tax Rules (for first three consignments) – absence of invoice evidencing the sale (for fourth consignment) – Held that: – it is not in dispute that there is no document prescribed under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act and R
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
pondents are directed to complete the adjudication proceedings in respect of the detention of the said consignment within a period of one week – petition disposed off. – W. P. (C).No.32520 of 2017 Dated:- 13-10-2017 – MR. A. K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. For The Petitioner : Sri. S. Suresh Babu (Cherunniyoor) And Sri. Aji V.DEV For The Respondent : Sri. Shamsudheen. V. K. JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Exts.P4 and P6 detention notices that have been issued detaining a consignment of goods that was being transported at the instance of the petitioner. On a perusal of Exts.P4 and P6 notices, it is seen that, out of four consignments, three consignments were detained, on the ground that, the goods which were state
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
er, and it is not in dispute that there is no document prescribed under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act and Rules for the purposes of covering an interstate movement in respect of consignments which have to suffer tax under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, the detention on the part of the respondents cannot be held to be valid and justified. I note, however, that in respect of the 4th consignment, the detention is justified inasmuch as what is shown in Ext.P3 delivery chalan is that the transaction is an interstate sale, whereas the document accompanying is only a chalan and not the invoice which is a prescribed document to evidence a sale. Under the said circumstances, I direct the 1st respondent to release t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =