2018 (3) TMI 969 – KERALA HIGH COURT – [2017] 1 GSTL 25 (Ker) – Detention of goods (M.S scrap) with vehicle – non-production of proper documents – insistence of the respondent that the petitioner must pay the security deposit demanded in the detention notice as a condition for release of the goods and vehicle – Held that: – The learned counsel for the petitioner faced with a situation where detention is inevitable till such time as the adjudication is completed undertakes to furnish a bank guarantee for the amount demanded in Ext.P3 notice – the respondent directed to release the goods and the vehicle covered by the detention notice, to the petitioner, on the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for the amount demanded in Ext.P3 notice,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
submissions made across the bar, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions: (i) On a perusal of Ext.P3 notice, it is seen that the objection of the respondent is essentially with regard to the documents that were seen accompanying the consignment . It is the case of the respondent that the proper documents as envisaged under the SGST Act and Rules, did not accompany the transportation of the goods. The learned counsel for the petitioner faced with a situation where detention is inevitable till such time as the adjudication is completed undertakes to furnish a bank guarantee for the amount demanded in Ext.P3 notice. Taking note of the said submission of counsel for the petitioner, I direct the respondent to release the goods
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =