SABITHA RIYAZ Versus THE UNION OF INDIA and Others.
GST
2018 (11) TMI 213 – KERALA HIGH COURT – 2018 (19) G. S. T. L. 393 (Ker.)
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 31-10-2018
WP(C). No. 34874 of 2018
GST
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The PETITIONER : DR.K.P.PRADEEP SMT.NEENA ARIMBOORSMT.RANI MUMTHAS SRI.SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.ANJANA KANNATH SRI.T.T.BIJU
For The RESPONDENT : SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a trader, transported natural rubber. After generating e-way bill, she sent a consignment to Uttarakhand, with all the relevant records. But it was seized by the State Tax Officer, Uttarakhand, the additional 11th respondent. The ground for detention is that in the e-way b
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e 7th respondent could not correct the error, at this stage. He also submits that there is no provision in the Rules for such correction, either.
3. That apart, the learned Standing Counsel submits that a certificate, as sought by the petitioner from the 7th respondent, is also not possible because the Authority has no such power conferred on him. At any rate, he too felt that the mistake is genuine, evident, and needs correction, in the interest of justice.
4. This Court intended to serve a notice on the 11th respondent, stationed at Uttarakhand and then rule on the issue.
5. The petitioner's counsel, however, submits that the produce being transported is natural rubber and it has been in detention for the past ten days. As its shel
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =