2017 (9) TMI 1044 – KERALA HIGH COURT – 2017 (6) G. S. T. L. 150 (Ker.) , [2017] 1 GSTL 8 (Ker) – Detention of goods – it was alleged that there were no nexus between the documents accompanied and the actual goods under transport – Section 129(3) of the Central/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – Held that: – the statutory provisions 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.
–
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 provisio
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
nd was transporting the same. The goods were detained by the appellants and Ext.P5 notice under Section 129(3) of the Central/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was issued. The notice contains the irregularities which led to the detention and the irregularity, in substance, is that there were no nexus between the documents accompanied and the actual goods under transport. It was challenging Ext.P5, the writ petition was filed. By the judgment under appeal, the writ petition was disposed of directing the second appellant to make a fresh assessment computing the value of the goods and the tax payable under the CGST Act and SGST 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 rel
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
furnishing of a security in the form of a Bank Guarantee equivalent to the amount of applicable tax, interest and penalty payable. 5. The 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, it is unnecessary for us to deal with that issue at greater length as the Government Pleader himself has agreed th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =