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 Upholds Goods Detention with Release on Bank Guarantee</h1> <h3>M/s. TOP HILL FURNITURE PALACE Versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, THE STATE TAX OFFICER (INTELLIGENCE)</h3> The Kerala High Court upheld the detention of goods due to discrepancies in the e-way bill information but directed their release upon the petitioner ... Detention of goods - detention on the ground that e-way bill was raised in favour of a consignee who had a GSTIN number, and was a defaulter in the filing of returns for almost 27 months - HELD THAT:- The detention of the goods cannot be said to be unjustified. The 2nd respondent are directed to release the goods and vehicle to the petitioner on the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee to cover the tax and penalty amounts determined in Ext.P3(d) notice. The 2nd respondent shall thereafter forward the file for adjudication under the CGST Act. Petition disposed off. Issues: Detention of goods under e-way bill for default in filing GST returnsAnalysis:The petitioner approached the Kerala High Court aggrieved by the detention of goods consigned under an e-way bill and invoice. The reason for detention, as per Ext.P3(a) and Ext.P3(d), was that the e-way bill indicated the consignment was for an unregistered dealer, while it was raised in favor of a defaulter in GST return filings. The court acknowledged the reasons for detention and deemed it justified, considering the discrepancy in the e-way bill information.The court, however, directed the release of goods and the vehicle to the petitioner upon furnishing a bank guarantee covering the tax and penalty amounts determined in the detention notice. The 2nd respondent was instructed to forward the file for adjudication under the CGST Act. The petitioner was further directed to provide a copy of the writ petition and the judgment to the 2nd respondent for further necessary action.In conclusion, the court upheld the detention of goods due to the discrepancy in the e-way bill information but allowed for release upon compliance with the bank guarantee requirement. The case was to be adjudicated further under the CGST Act based on the provided documents.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
