2018 (3) TMI 1074 – KERALA HIGH COURT – [2017] 1 GSTL 23 (Ker) – Detention of consignment with vehicle – requirement of security deposit for release of goods and vehicle – Held that: – it is established that the documents used by the petitioner would not suffice to cover the transportation of the goods – the detention cannot be said to be un-justified – the respondent is directed 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 – petition disposed off. – WP(C) No. 28277 of 2017 (H) Dated:- 31-8-2017 – Mr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. JUDGMENT A consignment of GI Squares, th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
spondent is essentially that the goods were being transported under cover of documents which were not the documents prescribed under the SGST Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the goods were transported under cover of a delivery note, which was prescribed under the KVAT Act, and this was necessitated since there was no prescribed format of the document that had to accompany the goods 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 transporta
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =