CHAITHANYA GRANITES AND MARBLES Versus TTHE ASST STATE TAX OFFICER SQUAD NO 5, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, KASARAGOD, THE STATE TAX OFFICER SQUAD 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
GST
2018 (11) TMI 331 – KERALA HIGH COURT – [2019] 61 G S.T.R. 38 (Ker), 2019 (23) G. S. T. L. 191 (Ker.)
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 19-9-2018
WP (C). No. 30007 of 2018
GST
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The Petitioner : ADV. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM)
For The Respondent : DR THUSHARA JAMES GP, SRI SREELALA N WARRIER SR SC
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
en breached. The transport thus took more than usual time to reach Edapally. By then, the e-way bill had expired.
3. In that background, the respondent authorities intercepted the vehicle at Kasaragod and detained the goods under Section 129 of the GST Act. Faced with the Ext.P7 order of detention, the petitioner submitted the Exts.P8 and P8(a) replies. Later, after failing in its effort to have the interim custody of the goods, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.
4. In response to the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel, the Government Pleader has submitted that the petitioner had ample time to have the consignment transported to Edappally, on time. According to her, the vehicle was ready by 13.08.2018. And from Sur
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ader.
7. The record bears out that the e-way bill generated on 01.08.2018 was valid up to 18.08.2018. Undeniably, the petitioner's vehicle, as seen from the Ext.P4, broke down at Surathkal in Karnataka and was ready only on 13.08.2018. If it had begun the journey the next day, by 15.08.2018; it must have been passing through Kerala the next day. But by 16.08.2018 the flood situation in Kerala worsened. Perhaps, the transporter must have played safe and waited for the roads to clear. And that did not immediately happen.
8. I reckon that the petitioner has every document to transport the goods safely, save the expiry of the time prescribed in the e-way bill. It is preposterous to contend that the petitioner delayed the transport deliber
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =