NOUSHAD ALLAKKAT Versus THE STATE TAX OFFICER (WC) STATE GST DEPARTMENT, MANJERI, THE ASST. TAX OFFICER SQUAD NO. VII, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD, STATE TAX OFFICER SQUAD NO. VII, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD, STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND THE MANAGER INDIAN BANK, MALAPPURAM BRANCH, MALAPPURAM
GST
2018 (10) TMI 1189 – KERALA HIGH COURT – [2019] 61 G S.T.R. 295 (Ker), 2019 (23) G. S. T. L. 3 (Ker.)
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 4-10-2018
WP (C). No. 32237 of 2018
GST
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The Petitioner : SRI. HARISANKAR V. MENON, SMT. K. KRISHNA AND SMT. MEERA V. MENON
For The Respondents : GP. DR. THUSHARA JAMES., SRI. S EASWARAN
JUDGMENT
Th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
put in place. In the meanwhile, if the respondents invoke the bank guarantee, the petitioner's right to statutory remedy becomes illusory.
4. The petitioner also seeks another relief: “To declare that Rule 140(2) of the CGST Rules 2017 is not to apply as against detention of the goods under Section 129 of the CGST Act.”
5. The petitioner's counsel has brought to my notice a judgment of this Court in Commercial Tax Officer v. Madhu (2017) 105 VST 244 (Kerala). This Court has held that the dealer ought to produce the goods at the time of adjudication. Here, the petitioner has not produced; so it suffered penalty. As the judgment emanates from a Division Bench, it is not in my remit to reexamine the precedential proposition. At the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =