TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Kerala High Court: Goods Detained Unjustly under GST Law</h1> The Kerala High Court found that the grounds for detaining goods under Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act were extraneous. The court emphasized that the ... Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - detention on the ground that there was a possibility of evasion of payment of IGST in Kerala and further, that the consignee of the goods in Kerala was indicated as an unregistered dealer at the time of detention of the goods - Scope of section 129 of CGST Act - HELD THAT:- There was no justification for detention of the goods in terms of Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act. This is more so because the reasons stated in the detention order are wholly irrelevant for the purposes of Section 129 of the Act - the 3rd respondent directed to release the goods and vehicle to the petitioner, on the petitioner producing a copy of this judgment, before the said respondent - petition disposed off. Issues: Detention of goods under Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act based on extraneous reasons.In the judgment delivered by the Honorable Mr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar of the Kerala High Court, the petitioner challenged the detention of goods by the 3rd respondent and the imposition of tax and penal liability based on an order (Ext.P8). The petitioner contended that the transaction involved a sale from a vendor in Gujarat to a purchaser in Uttarakhand, with delivery intended for Trivandrum. The tax invoice and E-way bill clearly reflected this arrangement. However, the goods were detained on suspicion of IGST evasion in Kerala due to the consignee in Kerala being initially identified as an unregistered dealer. The petitioner argued that the reasons provided for detention were irrelevant to Section 129 requirements. The invoice was a 'Bill to/ship to' model permissible under the CGST/SGST Act, and the consignee's registration details were promptly provided to the respondent after detention.Upon hearing arguments from both parties, the court found that the grounds for detention cited in the order were extraneous to Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act. The court emphasized that the E-way bill clearly outlined the transaction details from Gujarat to Trivandrum, and the invoice structure complied with the relevant rules. The court directed the 3rd respondent to release the goods and vehicle to the petitioner upon presenting a copy of the judgment. Subsequently, the files were to be forwarded to the adjudicating authority for further proceedings under Section 130 of the CGST/SGST Act. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
