2018 (4) TMI 344 – KERALA HIGH COURT – [2018] 1 GSTL 59 (Ker), 2018 (15) G. S. T. L. 689 (Ker.) – Detention of goods – consignment of goods that was being transported was not accompanied by the necessary declaration in Form KER I, which was mandated for supplies effected in the State – Held that: – identical matter has been disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court in The Commercial Tax Officer And The Intelligence Inspector Versus Madhu. M.B. [2017 (9) TMI 1044 – KERALA HIGH COURT], directing expeditious completion of the adjudication of the matter and permitting release of the goods detained pending adjudication, in terms of Rule 140(1) of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 – petition disposed off. – W.P.(C). No. 29675 of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he had entrusted the goods to a transporter and the transporter was obliged to file a declaration in Form KER II, and inasmuch the respondents had not enabled the generation of a KER II declaration in the website, it was impossible for the transporter to download the KER II declaration electronically and it was under those circumstances that the detention was necessitated. It is his case that the petitioner cannot be prejudiced on account of a lapse on the part of the respondents in maintaining the necessary infrastructure for enabling assessees/transporters to download the necessary forms electronically. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the lear
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the petitioner. While adjudicating the matter, the 1st respondent shall also take note of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was on account of the non-availability of Form KER II in the website that the transporter was disabled from producing the same at the time of transportation of the goods. He shall also consider the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of detention, the KER II declaration in manual Form was submitted at the check post, and further, that he had also submitted the online declaration in Form KER I in the KVATIS Website. The challenge in the writ petition against the vires of the statutory rules is left open for consideration in an appropriate case. – Case la
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =