2018 (5) TMI 1736 - HC - GST

Kerala High Court Orders Timely Adjudication of Detained Goods, Emphasizes Fair Proceedings

M/s. MANJUNATHAA ROCK DRILLS AND T. MURUGESH, PROPRIETOR, ASIAN AGENCIES Versus ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, KALPATTA, THE COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, STATE OF KERALA, TAXES (B) DEPARTMENT, STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT AND GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS

The High Court of Kerala directed the second respondent to complete the adjudication process concerning detained goods within two weeks based on the ... Release of detained goods - inaction on the part of the second respondent in completing the adjudication provided for under Section 129 of Kerala SGST Act in respect of the goods detained - Held that:- It is appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to complete the adjudication in respect of the goods detained in terms of Ext.P5(a) order within two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment - petition disposed off. Issues:1. Detention of goods under Section 129 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act.2. Failure of the second respondent to complete adjudication in respect of the detained goods.Analysis:The judgment by the High Court of Kerala pertains to a case where the first petitioner purchased goods from Tamil Nadu and transported them to the second petitioner in Kerala. The goods were detained by the first respondent under Section 129 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act. Subsequently, the second petitioner received a notice calling for payment of Integrated Goods and Service Tax along with a penalty for the detained goods. The petitioners raised objections to this notice through Exts.P6 and P6(a). The main issue raised in the writ petition was the failure of the second respondent to complete the adjudication process as required under Section 129 of the Act.Upon hearing the arguments presented by the counsel for both parties, the court found it appropriate to issue directions to the second respondent to complete the adjudication concerning the detained goods within two weeks from the date of the judgment. The completion of adjudication should be based on the objections raised by the petitioners in Exts.P6 and P6(a), and the petitioners must be given an opportunity for a hearing. It was further ordered that the petitioners must provide a certified copy of the judgment along with the writ petition to the second respondent for compliance with the court's directions.In conclusion, the High Court's judgment emphasizes the importance of timely completion of adjudication in cases of detained goods under the relevant tax legislation. The court's directive ensures that the petitioners are given a fair opportunity to present their case and that the adjudication process is carried out in accordance with the provisions of the law.