The Commercial Tax Officer And The Intelligence Inspector Versus Madhu. M.B.
GST
2017 (9) TMI 1044 – KERALA HIGH COURT – 2017 (6) G. S. T. L. 150 (Ker.) , [2017] 1 GSTL 8 (Ker)
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 30-8-2017
W.A. No. 1802 of 2017 in W.P. (C.) No. 28154 of 2017
GST
MR. ANTONY DOMINIC AND MR. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.
For The Appellants : Sri.Muhammed Rafiq, Sr. Government Pleader
For The Respondent : Sri. R. Muraleedharan
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, J.
This appeal is filed by the respondents in W.P.(C) No.28154 of 2017.
2. We heard the learned Government Pleader for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner.
3. The respondent herein, a dealer registered under the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Ordinance together with penalty. It was also ordered that on payment of 50% of such demand along with execution of a simple bond, the goods shall be released. It is this judgment which is challenged before us.
4. On hearing the rival submissions made at the Bar, we find that Section 129 of the CGST Act and SGST ordinance provides for detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit. The amounts payable on the passing of the final order are those specified in subsection 1. Sub-section 5 provides that on payment of the amount referred to in sub-section 1, all proceedings in respect of the notice specified in sub-section 3 shall be deemed to be concluded. The statute also make provisions for release of the goods pending pass
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e above statutory provisions, therefore, provide a mechanism for adjudication following detention of goods including for the provisional release thereof pending adjudication. When the statute itself provides for such a mechanism, a deviation therefrom cannot be ordered. If that be so, the provisional release in the manner as is ordered in the judgment under appeal cannot be sustained.
6. However, taking note of the provisions of Rule 140 (2) obliging a dealer to produce the goods as and when demanded, and considering the inconvenience and prejudice that is likely to be caused on account of the delay, we need hardly emphasise the necessity for an expeditious adjudication even in cases goods are released provisionally. However, in this case,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =