2023 (8) TMI 734

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... modified demand in Ext P3 appellate order. 2. The brief relevant facts for the determination of the writ petition are thus: (i) The petitioner is a partnership firm and a registered dealer under the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act and the Central Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017( in short, 'KGST/CGST Acts) & Rules framed thereunder. (ii)The petitioner was checked by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer (Squad No.II, Thodupuzha). Even though the petitioner pointed out the availability of delivery challan, which was misplaced in the showroom, the proper officer CGST Act, confiscating 609.040 gms of gold ornaments. In Ext P1, the proper officer has demanded the maximum fine (value of the goods) in lieu of confiscation, along with tax and p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the modified demand in Ext P3 appellate order. 3. Heard; Sri. Tomson T. Emmanuel, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Thushara James, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 4. Sri. Tomson T. Emmanuel reiterated the contentions in the writ petition. He placed reliance on Ext P6 judgment passed by this Court, to canvas the position that this Court has in an identical situation directed the respondents to return the bank guarantee to the petitioner, as the appellate order had attained finality. He also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 18531/2023, wherein this Court had directed the gold articles seized under the Customs Act, 1962, to be released to the petitioner....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nalty of Rs. 90,444/- and the reduced amount of fine at Rs. 5,42,664/-, thus totaling to an amount of Rs. 7,23,552/- 10. The petitioner asserts that although Ext P3 order was passed as early as on 10.01.2023 and the petitioner making Ext Pr request before the first respondent on 02.02.2023, the second respondent has not released the goods and has refused to receive the modified demand from the petitioner. 11. The contention of the second respondent that he has not received Ext P4 request is untenable because as per the postal delivery form submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it shows that Ext P4 order was delivered to the second respondent on 06.02.2023. 12. Section 112 of the CGST Act provides that any person aggrieved ....