Malabar Steel Industries v. Assistant State Tax Officer, Karukutty
Date: October 11, 2018
Subject Matter
Seized goods and vehicle could be released on furnishing bank guarantee for tax & penalty and bond for the value of goods
Summary
1. The petitioner, a dealer under the CSGST Act, sold goods as seen from Ext.P1 invoice. The vehicle and the goods were detained because the validity of the Ext.P2 e-way bill expired and the invoice number was allegedly manipulated. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed this writ petition.
2. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought the following reliefs:
| "(i) | To issue a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3, P3(A) and Ext.P5 notices and P4 order issued by the respondent u/s. 129 (1) of the CGST and SGST Act. |
| (ii) | To grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case." |
3. The learned Division Bench of this Court in Renji Lal Damodaran v. STO [2018] 97 taxmann.com 677 (Ker) dealt with an identical issue.
4. Applying the ratio of that judgment, I direct the respondent authorities to release the petitioner's goods and vehicle on his "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 Rules".
With the above direction I dispose of the writ petition.
1. The petitioner, a dealer under the CSGST Act, sold goods as seen from Ext.P1 invoice. The vehicle and the goods were detained because the validity of the Ext.P2 e-way bill expired and the invoice number was allegedly manipulated. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed this writ petition.
2. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought the following reliefs:
| "(i) | To issue a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3, P3(A) and Ext.P5 notices and P4 order issued by the respondent u/s. 129 (1) of the CGST and SGST Act. |
| (ii) | To grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case." |
3. The learned Division Bench of this Court in Renji Lal Damodaran v. STO [2018] 97 taxmann.com 677 (Ker) dealt with an identical issue.
4. Applying the ratio of that judgment, I direct the respondent authorities to release the petitioner's goods and vehicle on his "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 Rules".
With the above direction I dispose of the writ petition