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>High Court Orders Release of Goods & Vehicle with Bank Guarantee & Bond for Tax & Penalty</h1> <h3>CHELLAPERUMAL VAIKUNDASEKAR PROPRIETOR, AYYA VAIKUNDA TRADERS Versus ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER SQUAD NO. III, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX-1, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY REVENUE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI</h3> CHELLAPERUMAL VAIKUNDASEKAR PROPRIETOR, AYYA VAIKUNDA TRADERS Versus ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER SQUAD NO. III, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, ... Issues:1. Detention of goods due to alleged misclassification in tax rate2. Relief sought by the petitioner3. Interpretation of relevant tax laws and rules4. Application of precedent judgment to the current caseAnalysis:The petitioner, a registered dealer in re-processed plastic mats, faced detention of goods and vehicle by the respondent authorities over alleged misclassification in tax rate. Seeking relief, the petitioner filed a writ petition with various prayers, including setting aside the detention order, releasing the goods unconditionally, and declaring the classification of the goods under specific HSN code. Additionally, the petitioner challenged the constitutionality and legality of certain provisions under the Kerala Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, along with related rules. The petitioner also sought directions to prevent the enforcement of specific rules deemed unconstitutional.The High Court referred to a previous judgment in Renji Lal Damodaran Vs. State Tax Officer, where a similar issue was addressed by a Division Bench. Relying on the ratio of that judgment, the Court directed the respondent authorities to release the petitioner's goods and vehicle upon the petitioner furnishing a Bank Guarantee for tax and penalty due, along with a bond for the value of goods as per Rule 140(1) of the CGST Rules. By issuing this direction, the Court disposed of the writ petition, providing the petitioner with a specific course of action to secure the release of the detained goods and vehicle.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the detention of goods, the relief sought by the petitioner, the interpretation of tax laws and rules, and the application of a precedent judgment to resolve the current case. The Court's decision to release the goods upon the petitioner meeting specific requirements demonstrates a practical approach to resolving the dispute while upholding the legal framework governing tax classification and enforcement procedures.
TaxTMI 