TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 1409
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; Smt. Meera V. Menon for the petitioners. Smt. Jasmine M. M. , Government Pleader, for the respondents. JUDGMENT Since the petitioner in W. P. (C.) No. 33511/ 2019 is a consignor of the goods that has been transported in the vehicle under the registered ownership of the petitioner in W. P. (C.) No. 935/ 2020. Hence, both these cases are inter-connected and so these matters are dispos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he detention of goods which are belonging to the petitioner is merely on the reasoning that the vehicle number shown in the e-way bill is not matching with the actual vehicle number and that hence, exhibit P1 notice detaining the goods of the petitioner and exhibit P2 notice demanding to pay security is arbitrary, illegal and unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of this case. 4. Heard Sri. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nded is Rs. 1,44,684 (viz., Rs. 36,171 (Central tax) + Rs. 36,171 (State tax) + Rs. 36,171 (penalty) + Rs. 36,171 (penalty) = Rs. 1,44,684), whereas in internal page 3 of exhibit P2 notice, the amount demanded is Rs. 2,58,364 (Rs. 1,29,182 (Central tax) + Rs. 1,29,182 (State tax) = Rs. 2,58,364). Further, it is pointed out that the figure shown in page 2 of exhibit P2 notice is under section 129(1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... representative in case, bank guarantee to the tune of higher of the abovesaid two amounts is duly furnished on behalf of the petitioner. 7. Heard Sri Harisankar V Menon, learned advocate appearing for the registered owner of the vehicle, who is the petitioner in the connected W.P. (C) No. 935/2020 would submit on the basis of instructions of the party that his party is willing that his seized ve....