2018 (11) TMI 1075 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI – Detention of goods – demand of IGST – petitioner paid the amount through the portal – case of Revenue is that the petitioner ought to have paid the tax and penalty either through cash or through Demand Draft – Held that:- Evidently it is only a service provider, having no role to pay in the apportionment. Further, the Government both at the Centre and in the State, have ushered in the GST Tax regime to ensure that everything is made online with minimum manual interventions.
–
Yet strangely, the authorities still insist that the payment should be by physical means: either in cash or through Demand Draft. That insistence seems to be archaic and out of tune with the very spirit of the GST reg
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
tal, and obtained the Ext.P3 payment receipt. But the Assistant State Tax Officer refused to release the goods, for he insists that the petitioner ought to have paid the tax and penalty either through cash or through Demand Draft. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Yesterday, the learned Government Pleader submitted, on instructions, that the amount must be apportioned between the Centre and the State, as the liability is under the head IGST. It is not within the State's purview to effect that apportionment. Therefore, she suggested that if the Court could have before it the GST Network, it will solve the problem. Therefore, I suo motu added GST Network as the 2nd respondent and notified the Standing Counsel. 4.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
is further evident from Ext.P7, the petitioner is a dealer registered under the CGST. Cumulatively viewed, the petitioner's paying the penalty under Ext.P5 receipt to the portal of GST is eminently sustainable. Therefore, I direct that the 1st respondent authority, release the goods, after receiving Ext.P5 receipt. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. 5. Given the submissions advanced by the Standing Counsel 1 for the GST Network, evidently it is only a service provider, having no role to pay in the apportionment. Further, the Government both at the Centre and in the State, have ushered in the GST Tax regime to ensure that everything is made online with minimum manual interventions. Yet strangely, the authoriti
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =