T.M. ABOOBUKKAR AND KHALEEL RAHIMAN Versus ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER SQUAD NO. VII, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX-1, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY REVENUE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NEW DELHI
GST
2018 (12) TMI 136 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 21-11-2018
WP(C). No. 28414 of 2018
GST
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The Petitioners : ADVS. SRI. K. M. FIROZ AND SMT. M. SHAJNA
For The Respondents : ADVS GOVERNMENT PLEADER DR. THUSHARA JAMES ASSISTANT SOLICITO
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the goods detained by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction.
(iii) To declare that Sections 129 and 130 of Kerala Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and related provisions the Rules made relating to that are unreasonable, arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India.
(iv) To declare that Rule 138 of Kerala Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 and Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 are ultra vires Kerala Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and unconstitutional.
(v) To declare that Section 126(6) of the KSGST Act as well as CGST Act insofar as it ove
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
sue a direction to the respondents not to implement or not to insist on Rule 140 of the Kerala Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 and Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 and Form GST INS-04 prescribed there under and to keep in abeyance of the same by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order.”
3. The learned Division Bench of this Court in Renji Lal Damodaran Vs. State Tax Officer1 has dealt with an identical issue.
4. Applying the ratio of that judgment, I direct the respondent authorities to release the petitioners' goods and vehicle on their “furnishing Bank Guarantee for tax and penalty found due and a bond for the value of goods in the form as prescribed under Rule 140(1) of the CGST Rule
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =