TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court directs consideration of petitioner's submissions on incorrect GSTIN & e-way bill; emphasizes importance in pending proceedings under CGST Act Section 129.</h1> <h3>SHRI. A. BALASUBRAMANIAN Versus THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER SQUAD NO. 1, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD AND MS. NAMASCO TRADERS AND EXPORTS, KUTHUPARAMBA</h3> The Court directed the Assistant State Tax Officer to consider the petitioner's submissions regarding the detention of goods based on an incorrect GSTIN ... Detention of goods with vehicle - detention on the ground that GSTIN of the recipient is incorrect, which is in violation of Rule 46 of the CGST Rules, 2017 r/w section 31 of CGST Act, 2017 and also on the ground that No e-way Bill/e-declaration has accompanied the transport - Held that:- As the Assistant State Tax Officer has already taken up the issue, it is inappropriate for this Court to observe anything on the merits - petition disposed off. Issues:1. Detention of goods by Assistant State Tax Officer in Kerala based on incorrect GSTIN of recipient and absence of e-way bill.2. Petitioner seeking direction for expeditious conclusion of pending proceedings under Section 129 of CGST Act.Analysis:1. The petitioner, a businessman in Tamilnadu, had goods detained by the Assistant State Tax Officer in Kerala on the grounds of an incorrect GSTIN of the recipient and the absence of an e-way bill. The Court initially allowed the petitioner to release the goods by furnishing a bank guarantee. The petitioner's counsel now seeks a direction for the pending proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act to be concluded promptly. The counsel argues that the GSTIN number was correct as per Ext. P1(a) and that the e-way bill was not generated due to the unpreparedness of the official machinery at the time of transport.2. The learned counsel highlighted that the GSTIN number was accurately mentioned and that the absence of an e-way bill was due to the unavailability of the system for generating it. The Court acknowledged that the Assistant State Tax Officer was already addressing the issue and refrained from commenting on the merits. However, the Court directed the officer to consider the petitioner's submissions when evaluating the request under Section 129 of the CGST Act. Ultimately, the Court disposed of the writ petition with these observations, emphasizing the importance of the petitioner's contentions in the pending proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
