Beena Steel Corporation Versus The Assistant Sales Tax Officer, GST Department, Thrissur
GST
2018 (3) TMI 1074 – KERALA HIGH COURT – [2017] 1 GSTL 23 (Ker)
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 31-8-2017
WP(C) No. 28277 of 2017 (H)
GST
Mr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
JUDGMENT
A consignment of GI Squares, that was being transported at the instance of the petitioner, was detained by the respondents. Ext.P3 is the detention notice issued to the petitioner. In the writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the 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.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
under the SGST Act. The learned Government Pleader would submit, on instructions, that the document that accompanied the goods did not contain the essential details prescribed under the SGST Act and Rules, for the purposes of transportation, and therefore, the documents used by the petitioner would not suffice to cover the transportation of the goods. Taking note of the said submission of the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, and finding that the detention cannot be said to be un-justified, I direct the respondent to release the goods and the vehicle covered by Ext.P3 detention notice, to the petitioner, on his furnishing a bank guarantee to cover the security deposit amount demanded in the Ext.P3 notice, before the respondent.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =