M/s. PANEL SOURCE LLP Versus THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER SQUD NO. V, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES, KASARAGOD, THE STATE TAX OFFICER, SQUARD NO. V, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, KASARAGOD THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NEW DELHI – 2018 (10) TMI 1139 – KERALA HIGH COURT – 2019 (20) G. S. T. L. 193 (Ker.) – Release of detained vehicle with goods – invalid e-way bill – collection of security in the form of simple bond for the value of the goods and bank guarantee equivalent to the amount of applicable tax, interest and penalty – Held that:- The defect found was that the intercepted vehicle was carryin
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
10-2018 – MR K.VINOD CHANDRAN AND MR ASHOK MENON, JJ. For The APPELLANT : SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) For The RESPONDENT : SRI N NAGARESH, ASGI AND SRI MOHAMMED RAFIQ, SR GP JUDGMENT Vinod Chandran, J. The Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. One of the reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition is to declare Rule 140 of the CGST/SGST Rules as violative of Article 301 of the Constitution. The specific stipulation, which the petitioner is aggrieved with is that the collection of security in the form of simple bond for the value of the goods and bank guarantee equivalent to the amount of applicable tax, interest and penalty, which is a mandatory condition for the release of the goods detained under Section 129
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
st Rule 140 and only insists on consideration of the release of the vehicle. We record the submission of the learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant that the challenge against Rule 140 is not pressed. In such circumstances, we proceed to consider the issue of release of the vehicle. Ext.P7 is the order of detention and Ext.P7(a) is the notice issued under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act. The defect found was that the intercepted vehicle was carrying an invalid e-way bill. The document was categorised as invalid for reason of Part-B of the bill having not been uploaded and not accompanying the goods. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that Part-B was uploaded even before the notice and order, on 10.09.2018. We notice that the de
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =